J '

*t

THE MESj^AGE

-^OF /

THE SON OF MAN

-ft-

BV THE SAME AUTHOR

CLUE: A Guide through Greek to Hebrew
Scripture (Diatessarica— Part I).
Demy 8i/o, C/oM, Price Ti. 6d. neli I

THE CORRECTIONS OF MARK (Diatessarica-Part II).
Demji Sva, Clolh, Price ijy. Htt.

FROM LETTER TO SPIRIT (Diatessarica— Part III).
Demy %vo. Cloth, Price lor. net. *^ ■

PARADOSIS (Diatessarica-Part IV).- >
Demy 8k?, Cloth, Price is. (xt, net.

JOHANNINE VOCABULARY (Diatessarica-Part V).
Demy Svo, Clolh, Price ly. bd. ml. ~»

JOHANNINE GRAMMAR (Diatessarica— Part VI).
Demy Svo, Cloth, Price l6s. 6J. net.

SILANUS THE CHRISTIAN.
Demy 8j;o, Clolh, Price p. 6J. net.

r ■

AJ'OLOGIA : An Explanation and Defence.
„ Demy Svc, Clolh, Price v. 6d.. net.

NOTES ON NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM

(Diatessarica — Part VII).

Demy Sya, Clolh, Price 71. W. ntl. ^

INDICES TO'^IATESSARICA.
' Demy 8tw, Clolh, Price w. W. ntl.

JHE SON OF MAN (Diatess/tica-Part VIII).
In tht Press.

AGENTS
America . . Thk Macmillan Company

64' & 66 FiKTH AviNUE, New York
Australasia . The Oxford Uviversity Press

105 Flinders Lane, Melbourne
Canada . . . The Macmillan Company of Canada, Ltd.

17 Richmond Street West, Toronto
India . . . Macmillan & Company, Ltd.

Macmillan Building, Bombay

309 Bow Bazaar Strut, Calcutta

THE MESSAGE

OF

THE. SON OF IViAT^

BY

Edwin A. Abbott c. *

, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and
let them have dominion..." Ginisis \. 26.

" What is MAN that thou art mindful of him, and the son
or MAN that thou visitest him.?... Thou madest him to have
dominion...; thou hast put all things under his feet."

Psalms viii. ^ — 6.
"What is MAN that thou art mindful of him, or ths son
OF MAN that thou visitest him.'... Thou didst put alLthines' in
subjection under his feet.... But now we see not yet all thines
subjected to him." The Epistle to the Hebrews ii. 6—8.
"Till at the last arose thi man

, Move upward, working out the beast."

, . In Memeriam, oKvii.

"See that thou do na«ght as a beast. Else, thou hast fost
^»« *•*"• ' Epiaetus.

LONDON

Adam and^ Charles Black
1909

',0

t'

<Cimk({bg( :

FRINTID PY JOHN CLAY, M.A.
AT THI UNIVERSITY PRESS. "• • "

^^39781

- n

TO

"THE SONS OF MAN"

IS DEDICATED

THIS ATTEMPT TO HELP THEM

TO UNDERSTAND THE MESSAGE

OF ,

"THE SON OF MAN"

, • PREFACE

If we had to select from the gcisptfls t#o or th^e
phrases that seemed fittest to give^a due to the mean-
ing of Christ's deepest doctrine, " the Son of Man "
would seem to claim a place i;i the selection.

It is applied to Christ in all the four gospels, and
that frequently, and near the end, as well as near the
beginning, of His career. It never proceeds from a
friend, never from an enemy, never from an evangelist
or neutral relator, bbt practically always from our Lord
Himself. This self-appellation is connected, sometimes
• with a claim to authority; sometimes with a recognition
that the Claimant has been rejected; sometimes with
predictions that He is destined to suffer and to die and
to be raised up ; sometimes with descriptions of a .
future Coming in glory. If we could understand why
He chose this unvarying title to describe Himself amid
such various circumstances, we might gairi more insight
ijito His conception of the nature of His mission.

SSme have replied, in effect, " He chose it because '
He had in view the words of Daniel, 'Behold, one like,
the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven,' and

PREFACE

' the Son 6f man ' was regarded, by the Jews as a
Messianic title, and as equivalent to 'Christ, "the Son
of God.'" But such a reply merely illustrates the need
of referring, or at all events approximating, to original
authorities. The quotation given above from Daniel
is gfiven frort the Autlv)rised' Version. The Revised
Version gives "one like unto a son of mah," wit]ioJ[
the definite article, and without a capital letter to
" son."- This is in accordance with the original, '^he
meaning, is simply "one like a human being." No
early Jewish literature recognises "the Son of man"
as a Messianic title. Thi^re are jnany such titles, but
this is not one of them. >

Others point to the Book of Enoch where the term
is used for the first time as follows, "And there I saw
One who had a head of days. ..and with Him was
another being whose countenance had iAe appearance
of a man and his face was full of graciousness, like one
of the holy angels. And I asked the angel who went
with me... concerning that son of man, who he was...'."
Printing " Son of Man " with capital letters, they may
argue that here we find " that Son of Mkn " (which
they regard as " the Son of Man ") used absolutely as
a recognised Messianic title.

But this passage, as has been shewn by the author
in a previous work', rather disproves, than proves, that

' For the reference, and for references to other passages quoted in
-the text, see the notes at the end of the volume.

PREFACE

" the Son of Man " was a 'recognised Messianic title.
The character, so to speak, seems to the writer of
Enoch to require introduction, " He is first introduced
as "a man " in 3 phrase borrowed from Ezekiel (" the,
appearance of a man "). Not till then is he referred to
as "that son of man," where "son of man" seems,
borrowed from Daniel, and it appears better to
. print "that son of man" (not "that Son of Man")
meanirtg " thit human being whom I mentioned just
now, and who, though human, is with God."

The present treatise invites the general reader to •
take a brief and comprehensive view of the results of
a long and detailed investigation into th^ meaning of
Christ's self-appellatipn, in which the investigator starts
from the hypothesis that Jesus was morejikely to be
influenced by the Jewish scriptures than by the Jewish
apocrypha. The latter should certainly be called in to
our aid, but, in the author's judgment, not until the
former have been fully utilised. , -

• We shall begirt by asking,'" Was the title 'son of
man' given in the Old Testament to any person or
persons? If to one, what, do we know about him.?
If to more than one, what characteristics had they in
common ? " -

The answer is, that Ezekigl was called "son of
man " by a voice from heaven nearly a hundred times,
and Daniel once. And these two prophets had this in
common, that in their prophetic visions the former saw

PREFACE

" the appearance of a man," and the latter " one like a
son of man," above, 6r near, the Throne in heaven.

, The c^servant reader will not fail to note<,the
similarity between the expressions , of Ezekiel and
Daniel and those brought together by the imitative
writer of the passage above quoted from the apocryphal
Book of Enoch — " the appearance of a man," and "that
son of man."

' Further, the two prophets, had aisp this in common,
that e^h of them saw, "in a vision, what the Hebrew
Bible calls four "living things." This our English
Versions translate, in Ezekiel, four " living creatures." '
But in Daniel they translate it four "beasts." In
Ezekiel, th^ " appearance of a man" is regarded as
^controlling the fouR. living creatures like a charioteer ;
in Daniel, ^he four beasts are four conflicting empires
whose dominion is taken away and given to the figyre
that is " like a son of man." But in both, propheciesj^'
Man appears to be regarded as dominating the Beast. '
Passing frpm Ezekiel and Daniel we have next to
ask, " Does the Bible elsewhare represent ' man ' or
' the son of man ' as exercising dominion over noh-'
human nature ? And, in particular, does this repre-
sentation occur in any portion of the scriptures that is
alleged in any of our gospels to have been quoted by
our Lord.!"" The answer to both these questions is,
Yes. In the first place, this thought occurs in Genesis,
" Let us mike man in our image, after our likeness ;

PREK4(CE

and let them' have dominion..." and then follows an
< Numeration of their non^human subjects.

In the neJct place, it occurs in the eighth. Psalm,
"What is man that thou art mindful of him, and the son
of man that thou visitest him ? For thou hast made
him but little lower than God, and crownest him with
glory and honour. Thou madest him to have dominion
over the WQrks of thy hands, thou hast put all things
under his feet."

This Psalm contains nvords quoted by our Lord,
"Out of- the mouth of babes and sucklings hast thou
established strength," and tHtere are perhaps other
allusions to it in the words of Christ The Epistle to-
^the Hebrews and the First fipistle to the Corinthians
, apply it to Christ, the former expressly quoting the
passage "mentioning "the spn of man."

"Another passage likely to haVe been much in our
Lord's mind occurs at the beginning of Isaiah's
description of the " despised and rejected of men;" of
whom the prophet says that his "form" was "marred,"
and he adds, " mofe than the sons of man." This "
adds a new thought, but one by no means incompatible
with, a spiritual view of the Psalm above quoted,
namely, that although "the son of man" is to be ,
exalted above the beasts, he is to be exalted through
suffering.

The words »of Isaiah, taken with those of the

" Psalmist, and illustrated by the Pauline doctrine of the

.first Adam, who is earthy, and- the second Adam, who

'^

PREFACE

*i.

is spiritual, may remind us of Tennyson's description
of the world as being

"The seeming prey of cyclic storms
Till at the last arose the man ;

' * * • , • •

The herald of a higher race ^

And of himself in higher plice."

The context warns lis that man must 'expect to be
"crown'd with attributes of woe, like gfories," and it
qoncludes thus :

" Move upward, working out the beast, •
And let the ape and tiger die."

This has been anticipated by Epictetus, " See that

' tbou do naught as a beast. ' Else, thou hast lost the

MAN." It will be one of the objects of this treatise

to shew that Epictetus also has been anticipated by

Hebrew theology. ,

As regards Ezekiel (and this also applies to
Daniel) the best explanation of the appellation "son of
man " given to him from heaven appears to be that it
is intended to encourage him in his mission. He. is
called "son of man" just after he has seen the heavens
opened and a vision of " the appearance of a man "
controlling the Universe. It is as though the Voice said,
" I manifest myself to thee as Man, and thou art in my
likeness, ' son of man.' " •

This treatise will attempt to shew that a similar
sense of the unity between God and Man underlies
Christ's self-appellation.

Believing, in accordance with Hebrew theobgy^

PREFACE

t)\atpMan, in the invisible plan and purpose of the
Most High, was designed in the image of God, Jesus
was always looking back to that "image," that divirie
» arcl1jetype,.the Humanity of God. ,

Believing also, in accordance with the same
theology, that^Man, in the visible, initial, and rudi-
mentary outcome of that creative plan, ha'd fallen away ,
from the image of the Creator and was passing through
ages of development and purification under His shaping
and refining hand in order that he might be conformed
to the divine,likeness, Jesus >vas always IcJoking forward
to that future conformation,"'that feecond Adam, who
would redeem the failure of the first, and who" would
vindicate the Divinity of Map.,

This Humanity of God and this Divinity of Man
Christians believe that Christ porabined within Himself
If so, it was open to Him to call Himself either Son
of God, or Son of Man. Why choose the latter ?

The answer may be found by asking another
question. After being called by a Voice from heaven
Son of Go^, and after being tempted, by^ Satan to •
turn stones into bread, why did He reply with a
quotation, not about the characteristics of the Son of
God but about the characteristics of Man, " Man shall
not live by bread alone " .■•

Again, when the new convert, 'Nathanael, rap^
turously hailed his Master, not only as "King of
Israel" but also as "Son of God," why did Jesus
tacitly put aside the high title of " Son of God "^ and

PREFACE

^ • ' ^ ; 1

turn the cfisciple's attention to what we should call the
lower titlfe,'"-Ye shall see the heaven opened and the
angels of God ascending and descending on iAe Son of
Man"} -.

Perhaps some one may reply, "This is from tjie
fourth gospel, and that gospel does not profess to give
■ Christ's exact words. Probably Jesus never said this."
Assume that He did not. Still there remains a question
of profound interest forthosewho believe that John often
expresses wllat Jesus meqnt, where Mark, Matthew,
and Luke merely approximate to the expression of
what JesMS said: — What did 'John suppose Jesus to
have meant when he put into His mouth such a reply
'to Nathanael ? Why did, John represent Him as
apparently putting the tithe Son of Man above the
titie 'Son of -God ? , . "

, Reasons will be given for concluding that the
unknown evangelist's motive was somewhat as fol-
lows ;*!t was not that he underrated the humanity of
God, but — being, imbued with^ the spirit of John the
beloved disciple whose gospel he set forth — he felt
that Jesuspin His doctrine, thought it needful to lay a
. greater stress on the divinity of Man. All teachers
proceed from the known to the unknown. Jesus was
the great Teacher, and He taught, what the Johannine
Epfstle teaches in effect, "If ye do not love the son of
man whom ye have seen, how can ye love God whom
ye have not seen V

A formal study of the Jewish Law and of Jewish

PREFACE

tradition appears to have led the leaders of "religious
tho^ight in Palestine, during the days of John the
Baptist and Jesus.'to fall away fronv the high standard
of Hillel into a' comparatively non-human or even
inhuman sphere where they talked too much about
God and thought too little about Man.

In His reply to Nathanael Jesus seems to have

- . implied this among other things : "Do hot be so ready.
. ^to talk about God, or to call a prophet the Son of God.
/ - The heavens shall be opened for you as they were
opened for Ezekie! — alone among the prophets of Israel.
Then you shall, see angels of God ascending and
descending on the Son of Man. And the Son of Man
then revealed to you on earth 'vill be greater than
the Son of God in heaven, yes, and greater than God
in heaven, as you at present conceive of God."

This, though not so clearly expressed by the three
earliest gospels, appears to be the lesson conveyed by
Christ's self-appellation in all of them. We Christians

^ must iake our stand -on'" the solid rock of Christ's
Person in our hearts. He, Son of Man, "is also Son of

, God. We must not separate the two in thought.
But in practice we; must begin with.lovingkindness to
M^n first and the love of God second. The latter is
th\higher. But we must begin from" the lower.

Readers familiar with other treatises on " The Son
of Man " may be surprised at finding, in this rather''
lengthy preface, no mention of the Aramaic phrase by

PREJvACE

which Jesus' may have expressed it, and of its various
shades of meaning in Aramaic as distinct from *
Hebrew. • " * .

This subject will be touched on in the following
pages, but it is omitted here because the evidence is
scan|y, inconsistent, and inconclusive ; and inferences
about it, whatever they may be, do not materially
aflfect the argume^nt above stated, which is based
broadly on Hebrew' anJ' Jewish thought and is not
dependent on minute vert)al distinctiofis or conjectures."

At. the ^ame time it may be well to mention one
fact in connection with this part of the subject, which
bears on Ezekiel's above-mentioned appellation "son
o( man," arfd which reveals an agreement between
Hebrew apd Aramaic.

The Hebrew is ben adant, "son of ■Adam" or "son
, of man," for adam means either -"man " or "Adam."

Now it is well known that after the Captivity,"
when Aramaic speech supplanted Hebrew speech
among the Jews, the Hebrew Bible becaftie unintelli^ *
gible to them, somewhat as the Latin Vulgate has
become unintelligible to illiterate Italians. Conse- *
-quently, when the scripture was reaid in synagogues, it
became the custom first to read out the written ;
Hebrew text in Hebrew and' then to interpret it orally ;
in Aramaic-.'

' . Let us imagine Jesus as a child sitting in the
synagogue and hearing the reading of Ezekiel ; ■ how,
he, was sent forth to propfiesy (some say when he was

PREFACE

thirty years old) ; how 'Hhe heavens were opened " ;
how he saw the motion of " the Spirit "; how " Spirit "
(sic) came to him ; how he was called "soj^ of man "
and sent to preach to his countrymen ; and how he was
carried in the air to Jerusalem, and afterwards carried
to the top of a mountain — with several other experiences
not unlike,those that befell Jesus Himself later in life.
• Our business is, not with all thtse similarities of
experience— which will be discussed later o"n~but wTth
the appellation of Ezekid that the child Jesus would
hear in Aramaic, corresponding to the Hebrew ^««
adam.

In Aramaic, "man," according to .high authorities,
is never represented by adam. The Hebrew adam
(they say) when found in 'Aramaic, always means the
patriarch" Adam. "The interpreter, 'therefore, after

, rendering ben by the Aramaic bar ("son qf." familiar
to us in Simon Bar Jonahs or Simon son bf John)
ougfit to have rendered adiin by the Aramaic word "
commonly corresponding to^the Hebrew "man (adam)."'
But ?uch evidence as we have goes to shew that
the child Jesus' woqid not have heard this. We have,
it is true, no written^ Aramaic interpretation of scripture
so early as the first century ; but ,we have one of early
date caUed the Targum (i.e. Interpretation) of Jonathan.

- This calls Ezekiel, "Bar Adam," that is, "son of
Adam."

This does not contradict, but it amplifies, the
possibilities of the meaning above suggested for

PREFACE

Christ's self-appellation. For in the doctrine of such
a Teacher the personification of the human race in
Adam, found also in the Pauline "Epistles, would not
be likely to he dropjjed if suggested by the naipe/He
had chosen. 4 . *•

If Jesus called Himself "son of Adam," and if this ^^
has been rendered in Greek "son of man," that would
only be in analogy with the Greek rendering of
Ezekiel's appellation. There are several passages in
the Scriptures where the Hebrew appears to mean
" Adam " but the Greek has "men."

This is easily made clear. When adam means the
patriarch in Hebrew, it cannot have the article. When
it means " the [creature called] man, " or "the [race of] '
man," it can have the article ; and the meaning then is
shewn >by the article to be the whole race of man, that
is, mankind, or men.

The Hebrew Psalms have two ways of expressing
mankind. Sometimes they speak of " the sons of iAe
adam," that is, of " mankind." But much more often
they speak of "the sons o{ adam:' apparendy meaning
"the sons, or descendants, of Adam. ' ' „ '

The former may be loosely said to "come Vo the
same thing" as the latter. But the two may not
convey the same thought. However, the Greek ma^es '•>
no distinction between the two. , Nor do our English
Versions, which have "the children of men" (or " the
sons of'men ") for both Hebrew phrases. -

If Jesus called Himself " son of Adam," we should

pr&faCe

be justified -in treating it as probably intended to be
distinguished from "son of David," the popular name
for the Messiah^ Such a title would also explain the
Pauline thought of Adam the I^asr coming to save the
descendants of Adam the First— a thought assuredly
-not to be found in the Talmud. ,But our present'
' purpose is to deal with thought? rather than With
words, and to shew that the gospel instances of Christ's
self-appellation harmonize with the uses of the appella-
tion in the Old Testament so as to justify the conclu-
sion that He meant by it Man in his right relation to •
God, or the divinity of Man inseparable froni thef /
Humanity of God.

Men were to be born again from above, and to be
brought, like babes and sucklings, into the Family of
the Nursing Father, into the sphere' of this divinfi
Humanity. _ But, though they were to be born from
above, from heaven, they were also to be born below,
on earth, and this, through Him who might be called
the Chief oY the "babes and sucklings," the Represen-
tative of the, " little ones."

Thus we shall find a close connecfi(vi between our
Lord's->self-appellation and His mission. It was not
as a new teacher, nor as a new prophet, ner as the '
greatest of the sons of Israel, nor as the son of David,
. nor as the S6n of Gpd, that Jesus desired to be known
when He first came forth from the Jordan to preach
good tidings to the world. It was, if we may so say,
as a new human being, the new Man, filled through and

PREFACE

through with a, new hui^an spirit, which He felt' Him-
self destined ultimately to inf;ise into'the hearts of all

the sons of man t;hat were willing to receive it. v

f '

Scriptural references, and a few brtef notes, will be
foundf at/ the»end of, the volume. Part 1, called ^
Summary of the Evidence, summarises the evidence
that will be given much more fully in a larger and
more abstruse work, now in the press, entitled The
Son of Man. Part II, called A Harmony of the Facts,,
, is identical with the last chapter of that treatise. The
larger work will contain technical 'footnotes which
would Ijave been unsuitably for the general reader.
These have been carrcelled, or reduced to a minimum
and placed at the end of^the present volume.

One reason for publishing the smaller work before
the larger is the hope that criticisms of the former may
help the author to correct, in the latter,'any inaccuracies
or obscurities that may be detected in the exposition
of his hypothesis, and to meet any unforeseen objections
that may be brought against the hypothesis as a whole.

Wlllsidt, Well Walk,

HumpsUad.
< 12 May, 1909.

EDWIN A. ABBOTT.

XX

I

I ,..„... ...-.^ .~,i~—

CONTENTS

PART I

V ■

CHAPTER
I

II

III

IV

V
VI
VII

vni

IX '
X
XI

A SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE

EZKKreL, WHY CALLED "SON OF M^N " .

"The son of man" in the Eighth Psalm .

"(5ne like unto a son or man" in Daniel

"The Son or man" i»ot a messianic title
BEFORE Christian timi:s .

"Son of man" and "Son of Cod"

"More than the sons of man" in Isaiah

"The Son of man" having "authority"

"The Son of man" to be despised and to
"suffer"

"The Son of man" to be "raised up"
"On the THIRD day". . ,

"The Son of man coming" with "angels,"
"clouds," and "power" .

XII "The Son of man" in "glory"

PAOK

3

6
II

is

24

3>
35

39

47

6i
68 ,

CONTENTS

CHAPTER
I

II

III

IV

V

VI
VII
VIII

IX- .

X

• PARr II

A HARM.ONY OF THE FACTS

JESUS AND THE Temple

The Huii.der . ' . . . ^^ .

building on the rock . . . .'

buildinc. with authority

The Servant, Ransom, and .Sacrifice .

The Conqueror

THE Judge and the Pahaci.ete

The Exorcist as described nv Mark .

The Person and the Spirit as described
Bv John

frosTscRipT. On the limits or this investi
cation

PAGE

73

8i

86

9' .

98
'03
108
116

119
'25

APPENDIX
Passages in the gospels illustrating the meaning

of "the son of man" 133

NOTES

'S9

^

PART I

A SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE

«

- • CHAPTER I

EZEKIEL, WHY CALLED "SON OK MAN "

" Son of man " is not infrcc|uently used generically or
indefinitely in the Old Testamenf, as in the words " What is
man that thou aVt mindful of him, and the son of mail that
thou visitest him ?" But individually and definitely, no one
is called " son of man " in the CJld Testa«ient except Ezeki«I,
nearly a hundred times, and Daniel, on^c.

There are some remarkable parallelisms between Ezekiel
and Jesus. The heavens are said to have been " opened " for
both. The Spirit came to both. Kzekiel. was carried to
Jeru.salem and back ; and was afterwards Set down on a
mountain. Jesus, too, in the Temptation,, was carried to
Jerusalem and afterwards to the top of a mountain. Ezekiel
predicts the destruction of the temple then standing and the
construction of a new one. 'So does Jesas.

In all these respects Ezekiel stands alone among the
Hebrew prophets. He also stands alone, not of course I'n the
mention" of God's Spirit, but in the emphasis that he lays on
the One SpiftMhat animates every part of the Chariot of the
Universe, and On the need of a " neV heart" and "new
spirit " (expressions peculiar to him) which must be imparted
to Israel.

Other resemblances might be mentioned l^^is im'portant,
or less certain, as, for example, the fact — a fact at least in
Origen's opinion, for which there is much to be said— that

A SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE

Ezekicl, like Jesus, beuan to prophesy in the official "thirtieth
year," and the unclis|iutejl fact that Kzekiel is bidden to " bear
the iniquity" of Judah. But the parallelisms previously
mentioned suffice to make it probable that in assuming the

^ self-appellation of "son of man," Jesus had in view some-
thing of a spiritual nature common to Him and to Ezekiel
alone among the prophets.

Two explanations were given in ancient times of the
reason why Ezekiel was called "son of adkrrt "— for that is
the exact phrase, ben addftf. One)was, that it was intended /to
teach the prophet modesty, as niuch as to say, "He not pufTed
up by thy visions, for thou art but a son of adam, who is
himself the son of miamah, that is, earth."

Another was, that it was intended to encourage the ',
prophet to stand up for Humanity against the non-human
poWers, by saying tij him, in e~ffect, when he -fell- prostrate on
the ground, " Though thou«irt*,a son of man {adatn, that is,
Adari); earthy man) yet thou art also made in the image, and'
gifted with the spirit, of One like a_ man (adam) whom thoy i
hast .seen above. He is not of ear^ but rides upon tly
throne in tha 'henven t)f heavens controlling the Beasts, the
Living Ooaturcs, and impressing even upon them the
influence of ' the likeness of a man (adam).' He is,^ guiding-
the universe to His fore-6rdained fulfilment. H's'^son art
thou. He is with thee. Therefore be strong, son of adam,
stand upon thy feet." " ^

- This second explanation accords best with the prophetic' «
. precedents of Isaiah and Jeremiah. Both of the%e need, and
receive, 'encouragement, not rebuke or dis-ouragement, before »
they set out on their<several missions. So, toOj-^hen Daniel '*

. is aflTrighted and falls on his face, he is encouraged with the

, woMs, " Understand, O son of adam."

•: It is true that." the son of adam " is*sometimes used in
Biblical passages that ^scribe man's weakness and imperftc- ''
■ tion when he departs from Go^ or differs from God. Indeed

A SUMMARY ©F THE EVIDENCE

It is used by Halaam and by the profane friends of Job in'
a pasitively bad sense. But this does not represent the
fundamental Hebrew theology, in which "adam" and. "the
son of adam " are regarded as God's creatures created in His
image and for His glory, and destined to be conformed to His
likeness.

Was it from Kzekiel that Paul borrowed his conception of
the Messiah as "the Last Adam" and "the Second Man,"
which, though but once definitely mentioned, appears else-
where as " the One Man " and " the New Man," sometimes as
a Person, .sometimes as a Body, or Church, sometimes as a
s;piritual atmosphere, or Spirit? Nothing like this can be
found in Jewi.sh literature till the Middle Ages. Whence,
then, did Paul derive it, if not from Ezekiel .'

This cannot be fully discussed here. But" the most
reasonable conclusion seems to be that he derived it, not
from Ezekiel directly, but from Ezekiel indirectly, coming to I
him through Christian tradition (or through express revela-
tion as in the case of the Eucharist) about the meaning of|
Christ's self-appellation "Son of Man," probably in the form
"Son of Adam," of which be, the Apostle of the Gentiles, that
is to say, of the sons of Adam, would be quick to realise the
significance'. ' ■ '^',

' ' Kor references to pa:ssages quoted in the text, see the Notes at the
end of the volume.

The evidence here summarised will be given more fully and with foot-
notes of a technical character, in a treatise now in the press, entitled
T/u Son of Man, as explained on p., xx of Preface.

CHAPTER 11 -

"THE SON OF MAN" IN THE EIGHTH PSALM

iTllE book of Genesis describes Adam 'and Eve as
succumbing to the temptation of !iie serpent although they
had been created to have " dominion " over every living thing
that moves on the earth. But there is added a mysterious
prediction that their offspring shall in some way bring
retributionon the serpjent. That implied' a future and more
complete^^minion " of the sons of Adam.

Isaiih spfeftks of "a little child" as leading the wild beasts.
That, if fyotltaken as mere hyperbole, might mean that the
Child. IsraH would convert the Gentiles to the religion of -
Jehovah, or eBe that the Child,-that is, Humanity, would ulti- ■
mately obtain the dominion lover the Beast in human nature.

The eighth Psalm seems to blend literal with allegorical
poetry in its description of this dominion. The Psalmist
appears lo have been pieditating on Godls loving-kindness
^wards His liv^^^rggted offspring, Man, externally and
superficially weakTand m^re helpless than the beasts, yet so
fashioned — by God's mysterious shaping of the inward parts,
the heart and the brain— that he" has attained dominion jover
the strongest of the brute creation. Ful^of this thought,
he exclaims, "Jehovah, our Lord, how excellent is thy
name in all the earth, who hast ^et thy glory above the
heavens! Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings hast Jt
thou established strength, that thou mightest still the entmy
and the avenger."

A SUMMARY OK THE EVIDENCE

It will be remembered that Jesus, in Matthew's account
of Christ's entry into Jeq^salem, quotes some of these last
words. Also, according to Luke as well as Matthew, He
thanks God for revealing the truths of the gos[x;l to " babes."
And it is needless to dvuell on tHe prominence that He jjave '
to " little ones," and to the need of becoming as " little
children " in order to enter the Kingdom of God.

These facts should induce us to attach additional im-
portance to the Psalmist's riext words from the Christian
poir\| of view, " When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy
fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained;
what is man that thou art mindful of him, and the son of
adam (ben adam) that thou visitest him .' "

We are familiar with such questionings in modern times.
They are» based on the tendency, innate in our lower nature,
to think that God must attach to material vastnes$ or force*
the same importance that we attach to it. We need to be
constantly reminded of Elijah's lesson, going out of the cave
of our individual darkness into the presence of the Lord of
the Universe, and learning over again that the Lord is" not
in the earthquake " and '' not in the fire," bift that He speaks
through a "still small voice."

Jewish comments on this P.salm represent jealous angels
as uttering this exclamation " What is man ? " and as com-
plainirig that man has been unfairly favoured and placed ■
above them. The Psalm recognises that human " strength,"
when developed by God out of the human weakness of babes
and sucklings, is a part of the glory of the Most High.

So Patl, under sore trial, declares that he will " glory in
his weaknesses," because he has heard the voice of God sayin'g
to him " The power [i.e. the Power of God] is accomplished
in weakness." Also the Epistle to the Hebrews says of the
heroes of Israel, " Out, of weakness they were made powerful."
The same Epistle takes the " dominion " of " the son of man,"
mentioned in this Psalm, as destined to t»e fulfilled in

A SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE

Christ, although some of the expressions are manifestly
terrestrial': "Thou hast made him bjit little lower than God
(Elohim) and crownest him with glory and honour. Thou
madest him to .have dominion over the works of thy hands;
thou hast {Jut all things under his feet, all sheep and oxen,
yea, and the beasts of the field, the fowl of the air, and the
fish of the sea, whatsoever passeth through the paths-of the
seas." >

The nature of this dominion pver " the beasts of the
field " (as distinct from " sheep jnd oxen ■*) is not here
clearly defined. But another Psalm says, " He shall give his
angels charge over thee to keep thee in all thy ways...tJiou
shalt tread upon the Hon and tlu adder, the young lion arid the
serpent shalt thou trample under feet!' Apparently God makes
this promise to the man, whoever he is, who is in clo.se
communion with God, and w"ho, as the first verse of the
Psalre says, " dwelleth in the secret place of the Most High "
and " shall abide under the sfiado* of the Almighty."

This kind of .sovereignty or"tl(e son of man" over " beasts"
appears to be in Christ's thought in several passages of the
gospels. Luke has it — as we shall see, if only we recognise
' the identity between God-given " dominion " and " authority"
— in the promise made by Jesus to the Seventy Apostles or
Missionaries, " Behold I have given you authority to tread
upon serpents and scorpions and over all the power of the enemy"
At the same time He adds a warning : " Howbeit in this
rejoice not, that the spirits are' subject unto you ; but rejoice
that your names are written in heaven."

The " serpents iand scorpions " may be the slanders of*
the adversaries of the faith, as when God says to Ezekiel,
•' Be not afraid though briers and thorns be with thee and
thou dost dwell among scorpions." But they may be also the
various slanders and suggestions of the Devil (i.e. Slanderer)
or Satan (i.e. Enemy or Adversary) in the heart of man,
urging him to revo]t from the Man to the Beast.

8

A SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE

The Greek for Beast (in tho sense of "wiJd beast") is often
applied to a " sfcrpent," and might be UBed for a devil, demon,
or unclean spirit. Matthew and Luke|describing the tempta-
tion of Jesus by Satan, onfft Mark's " He was with the wild-
beasts." Perhaps they took 'it as a repetition of "He was
with ' the power of the enemy.,' " i.e. " with Satan."

In Luke, immediately after giving to Ilis la.st-appointed
Seventy Apostles "authority to tread on serpents and
scorpions and over all the power of the enemy," Jesus turns
to thank God for. revealing the Gospel unto " babes," though
it is hidden from the wise an^ understandirjg. Aild the
ecstatic tone in which the P.salm of the Babes and Sucklings
acknowledges Sod's "glory"— "O Jehovah, our Lord, hpw
excellent is thy name in all the earth, who hast set thy glory
above Jhe heavens "—is not unlike the tone of Luke's version
of Christ's words at this crisis : ■' In that same hour Jesus
rejoiced in the Holy Spirit, and said, I thank' thee, O Father.
Lord of heaven and earth "'

In effect, Je-sus here praises the excellent Name of the
Father for exalting the "babes " whose names'are " written in
heaven," and to whom He has given power over serpe^jts and
scorpions. And we can hardly fail to notice other parallel-
isms between the.P.sahn and the Gospel.=^not. Luke's gospel
alone here but the Synoptic Gospel as a whole— parallelisms
not only in respect of thought, but ^Iso in respect of what
may Be called, technical ierms of Christ's theology.
^ The Psalm connects (God's ;' excellent *iame " and the
"glory above the heaveijs," with "babes and sucklings,"
because of " adversaries " and because of God's purpose to
"still the eneiny and the avenger."

First, as regards "babes," we find the Synoptic Gospel
everywhere assuming that the '■ excellent name " of God in
heaven is that of the Father. This implies that the "f xcellent
name " for men on earth' is that of children. And on almost
the only occasion on which the three Synoptistj. 'agree 'in

• -

A SUMMARY OK THE EVIDENCE

introducing Jesus as saying ]' my name," they describe Him
as connecting Himself wlthi "a- little child." Those who
receive such a little child in His (the Son's) name are said to
receive also the Father. i

As regards " the enemy and the avenger," we find Jesus,
in Luke— just before He declares that He^as given His
disciples autfiority to tread on "serpents- and scorpions," and
over "all the power of the enemy" — exclaimipg "I beheld
Satan (I.e. the adversary) fallen as lightning from heaven."
Elsewhere Jesus calls' His castihg-out ^f unclean spirits, in
effect, a casting-out oi^ Satan.

These facts indicate that Christ's doctrine of "the
Kingdom of Heaven " or " Kingdom of God " fundamentally
agreed with the Psalmist's doc.trine of the " dominion " of tlie
"son of man" — if the latt^was taken in a spiritual sense.
For such a "dominion " irrfplied a complete heartftit recogni-
tion, in Man, of the excellent Name, that is, the Divine
Essence or Reality, the Fatherhood of God. This would
make the human will one with the divine will, and the Son of
Man- a veritable Son of God, exalted " abbve the heavens,"
and, by this exaltation, exalting the glory of the Father.

j

CHAPTER III

"ONE LIKE UNrO A SON OF MAN" IN DANIEL

Daniel, after beholding a vision of four winds and fouii
beasts conflicting for supremacy, says, " I beheld till thrones
were placed, and- one that was ancient of days did sit* Then
he ^describes how " the judgment was set," in which the
dominion of the beasts was taken away. Then he a(ids, " I.
saw in the night visional and, behold, there came with the
clouds of heaven one like unto a son of man, and he came even
to the ancient of days, and they brought him near before
him. And there was {jiveo4mn dominion...." A subsequent
interpretation explains thijouV beasts -as " four kings," whose
kingdom is to be taken awiy and given " to the people of the
saints of the Most High." ^ is important to note that, instead
of ''(pie , unto a son of man" the Authorised Version has
.' like tlu Son of man [' (printing " son " with a capital letter)
and that this is erroneous.

In noting this error, and in comparing this vision of "one
like unto a son of man " with that in which Ezekiel saw
" a likenesf-as the appearance of <j man," we must not entirely
pass over the fact that this portion of Daniel is written in
Aramaic. In Aramaic the word for " man " is different from
the Hebrew "adam," and the Hebrew "man" often corre-

A. M. ' - , , t

1

A SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE

sponds to the Aramaic " son of man.'' On this point the
reader will find a note at the end of the volume. All that
can be said here is that the Aramaic form for "man" does not
justify the rendering of our Authorised Version "the Son of
man." The meaning, according to rule, should be that given
in our Revised -Version, "a son of man" and this, would
naturally correspond to " a man " in Ezekiel.

But this verbal correspondence must not conceal the very
great difference of -thought between the two visions. Ezekiel
sees one Person, Daniel sees two. Ezekiel sees a " throne,"
Daniel sees " thrones." This plurality (jf " thrones " caused
sharp controversies between Jewish Rabbis in the second
century. R. Akiba thought that an additional throne was
provided for David, but was sharply rebuked by his"
, contemporaries. •

The unknown writer of Daniel appears to have regardeSP*
» the Ancient of Days as representing God in heaven, and the
figure " like unto a son of man " as the spiritual Israel, the
representative of elect humanity, who is to be brought near
the throne, accompanied by all the holy ones of God, the'**
saints, clothed in the clouds that reflect the glory of the Sun
of Righteousness. Reasons for this view will be given eke-
where.

In our gospels— the three, but not the fourth, which
never mentions " clouds " — great confusion has arisen from
the obscurity of the phrase "with the clouds of heaven,"
which is inaccurately rendered by the Septuagint and which
appears in various forms in our gospels. Also the Revelation
of John, describing " one like unto a son of man " (where the
margin of the Revised Version follows the Authorised in.
giving " the Son of man ") adds. In his description, character-
istics that Daniel assigns to the Ancient of Days. But
\ amidst these and other confusions it appears that Jesus
accepted this vision of Daniel's as describing the fiilfilment of
the Psalmist's prediction, namely, that "the son of man"

A SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE

. 1 ^

would receive " dominion " from God. He also accepted
Daniel's view of some kind of corporate judgment passed by
collective elect humanitjj made one iir^ Person.

This is distinct from Ezekiel'.s vision and supplementary
to it. Eze^Al sees One Spirit like that of Humanity
controlling the ordered universe. Daniel sees a woifd
tcmpoiarily pyossessed by transitory pcJwers of disorder and
violence. These he sees succeeded by a reign of righteous-
ness when the Ancient of Days intervenes to judge, and|
oppressed Humanity is at last promoted to its place near
the throne of judgment.

The two visions are complementary. Everything that
grows appears to the eyes of mortals, in some stages of
its growth, to be misshapen and imperfect, till it reaches what
we mortals are pleased to call its maturity or fulfilment, that
is to say, the stage we like best. And to us, as Bacon says,
things seem to move calmly in their places but viotiently to
their places. ^

Both • Daniel and E^Riel were captive exiles, and both
might naturally have been expected to see the world out of
joint and things " moving violently to their places." This, in
effect, was what Daniel did see in his four separate visions of
the four conflicting beasts. But Ezekiel, soaring in spirit
to the heaven of heavens, saw the four in one Chariot, con-
trolled by One Charioteer.

Jesus combined both these conceptions. The former, that -
of Daniel, received prominence in the Synoptic gospels ; the
latter, that of Ezekiel, in the Johannine. Jesus sometimes
quotes Daniel very definitely and distinctly, as in phrases
about " the abomination of desolation," ancL^bout the
"coming," in connection with "clouds." Ezekjel Ha does not
quote quite so clearly. Yet there is good reason for sup-
posing that His deepest thoughts (like those of the author of
Revelation) went out to the latter much more than to the
former ; that He looked forward, as Ezekiel looked forward,

»3 ' . * 3— J

^?.

t

A SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE

to the time when thtte should be " one flock " and " one
^shepherd " ; and that He saw, and even more clearly than
Ezekiel, the Chariot of the Universe moving forward iaits
unchecked and undeviating course. • ^

u N

CHAPTER IV

" THE SON OF MAN " "NOT A MESSIANIC TITLE
BEFORE CHRISTIAN TIMES .

Rabbi Akiha explained the plural "thrones" in Daniel

^ by saying " One for Him [that is, for God], the .other for

iDavid," where it is worth noting that Akiba does not call

■ the Messiah " Son of David " but " David." This agrees with
Ezekiel Aid Hosea. Ezekiel twice speaks of "David" as
destined to be the " one sliepherd " of united Israel. Hosea
says that in the latter days " The sons of Israel shall return
and seek the Lord their God and David their king." Pre-

I sumably there would be, for Jews, little difference between
" David " (i.e. the representative of David) and " the Son of
David " (i.e. the second David) as Messianic titles.

However, for expressing this opinion, Akiba (as has been
remarked above) was severely rebuked by his contemporaries.
But the expression indicates two 'facts, not matters of
opinion : — first, that Daniel's Vision was not regarded by
Jews in the second century as meaning. a definite person
known (in the phrase of our Authorised Version) as " the
Son of man " ; secondly, that it was then takertifd^mean simply
one like a human being, who might be DavidJ'or Hezekiah, or
Elijah, or a new Prophet, or the Messiah in an altogether
new personality.

How is it, then, that we find in Enoch and the Second
Esdras mention made of " the sqn of man," and " that son of

A SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE

man," in such a way as ta convey^ the impression that a
definite personality is intended, as- we might speak of the
Advocate, or the Comforter ? The quotation from Enoch
given in the Preface (p. viii) supplies the best answer to this
question :— " It is -because the writers of these'books, following
Daniel in his conception of one like a son of man who was to
receive dominion, after introducing the Deliverer indefinitely
as being like a human being, subsequently refer to hint repeatedly
in a brief form as ' the, or that^ son of man', meaning ' the
person like a human being whom I mentioned above.' " The
necessity of such a condensation is almost obvious.

But perhaps, as my readers may not have easy access to
Enoch, it will be ivell to shew them how the writer gradually
glides into the use of " that " or " the," in connection with the
title. |. " >

It is first stated that Enoch sees,' along with God, one
who has "the appearance of a 'man." This is Ezekiel's
phrase. Amazed at seeing.a human appearance, a mere man,
in such a position, Enoch asks the angel'accompanying him
who this human being is, and, to express "human being," he
u.ses "son of man," part of the»phrase. used by Daniel :— " I
asked the angel... concerning that son of man, who he was,
and whence he was, and why he went with the Head of Days
[i.e. with God]."

The angel in his reply defines the "human being" or-" son
of man" by saying, in effect, that he is the man preeminent in
righteousness and in the favour and election of God: "this
is the son of man who hath righteousness, with whom dwelleth
righteousness, and who. ..etc" Then the angel speaks of him
as " this son of man whom thou liast seen " and afterwards
describes in detail what " he " will do. But the title is not
repeated till some way on, when Enoch speaks of him as
" that son of man''

It appears then that Enoch—and a similar argument
applies to the Second Esdras— affords no basis for the con-

i6

A SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE

elusion that "the Son of man" was'already in Christ's time
a familiar term for " the Messiah." „

If indeed " the Son of man " had been .a recognised
Messianic title in our Lord',s d«ys, it would have followed
that, when He applied this phrase to Himself, He would have
been understood as'qiaiming to be Messiah. But He is not
so understood. On the contrary, on the first occasion when
• Christ, in the three Synoptic gospels assumes this title and
declares that " the son of man " has authority to forgive sins,
novjne is described in ^the context a^^ understanding that
Jesus thereby claimed "to be " t/ie Christ of GUd." Na^,
more, Matthew actually inserts a sftitement that the pyeople
glorified God because He had given such authority, to " men."
No doubt, Matthew does not mean to 'say that the
multitude regarded this authority as being given to alt " men."
But he may, have intended to describe them as vaguely
feeling that Jesus claimed this authority for the "son of Adam,
or Man," as including others beside fjiroseir And this inter-
pretation would be justified if He meant " man in his right
relation to God," that is to say. Himself and those who could
receive Him ; "Man," as "man" will become, when confoYmed
to the divine inlage of Humanity in which he was created.

Other evidence, in great abundance, points to the same
conclusioji, namely, that Jesus, in calling Himself "son of
-man," was using not a familiar but an unfamiliar title, a
spiritual or mystical*term — like many other spiritual terms
often used by Him— intended to lead the disciples on to
spiritual conceptions. " If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly,"-
say the Jert's to Jesus in the fourth gospel. But He will not
" tell " them this " plainly." If ,they cannot be led on from
accepting Him as mere "sort of man" to accepting Him as
"Chrfst," it would appear thjt He prefers then) not to
accept Him (for it would^ be a mere accefiting in name) in the
latter character.

Accordingly Matthtfw represents Jesus as saying to the

'7

A SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE

disciples, "Who say men that I, the son of .man, Um?" and
then "Who say ye that I am?" Now, if the first question
had meant '"Who say men that I, the Christ, am?" there
would have been no great merit in Peter's confession when he
answered "Thou art the Christ."- It would have been a mere
dutiful assent, " Dost thou not call thyself the Son of Man,
that is, the Christ of God ? And hast thou not often called
thyself by that title ? Who are we, thy disciples, that we
should deny thy word? Thou art,vas thou sayest, the Christ
of God."

But as a fact, Peter meant " Thou callest thyself merely
son of man, but we feel that .we have {(one other liear the
throne of God but thee. Thou niu.st needs be, yea, thou art,
the Christ, the Son of God!' He reached this leap from
" son of man " to Son of God by faith and divine blessing, and
because Christ's doctrine had beeri daily preparing him to
recognise the divinity iA hiihian nature \^||en conformed to
the divine will. But it was a leap. "The son of man" did
not mean, before Chri.st's time, " the Son of God."

Most clear and emphatic of all the gospels is the fourth,
in bringing out the perplexity caused to the Jews by the
reiteration of this apparently^ commonplace yet my.stica)
title, "whic}i it will be well to print in inverted commas when
uttered by them, because it is n9t a phrase of theirs but of
Christ's. It is jn a passage toward the close of Chri.st's public
teaching. He has just said, " I, if I be lifted up from the
earth, will draw all men unto myself" The multitude
answer, " We have heard out of the Law that the Christ
abideth for ever, arqJ how sayest thou, ' the son of man '
must be lifted up? Who is this ' son" of man'?"

As a fact, Jesus had here said " I," not " the son of man."
But the^multitude is exhibited dramatically, and perha]^ not
quite fairly — in this its last utterance on the stage^as
committing a slight verbal inaccuracy owing to the fact that
Jesus hhs been habitually calling Himself " the son of man "

i8

A SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENC

and that He has previously spoken in public of "'khe son of
man " as destined to be " lifted up." 1

When the crowd says " The Christ abideth mr ever,"
that is, literally, " for the age," they probably assiAne that
their Messiah will "abide" reigning over Israef for the
complete Messianic "age" on earth, AnA that this Is incom-
patible with being " lifted up from tlu earth!' I

They base>this assumption of an earthly reign I'lpr ever"
on "the Law," that is, the Scriptures; and "our kevised
Version in its margin refers to four passages in the Pr^hets
and th'p Psalms, all ofVhich connect " for ever" with "Bavid,"
pr.in one instance, with <he words "a priest^fter the(ord^r of
Melchizedek," which, though some Jewish traditions connect
with Abraham, others connect with David.

The admission that the multitude could not have spokej/"
quite so inaccurately i^3j_ Jesus quite so obscurely does /of
invalidate our conclusion that th( author of the fourth gospel
intends this question " Who is this ' son of man ' ? " to be
afftal and crucial instance of t lie popular misunderstanding of
Christ's self -appellation, as well as of His nature. And that
the people did misunderstand both, Is, we contend, a historical
fact.

^ What Chn>t actually said about ""the exaltation, or lifting
up, of " the son of man," was probably more like what. He is
re|>orted as saying in the Syripptists, wher6He quotes the
words, attributed to^ David^,>»'the Lord said unto my Lord,
Sit thou on my« right/h^," and asks how these— if they
apply to the Messiah— can be reconciled with the view that
the Messiah is David's son. But this Synoptic passage
points to the same conclusion as the Johannine — namely, that
when Jesus spoke of " the son of man at the right hand of
God," He meant something entirely different from what the
people meant by it.

The difference may, be illustrated by the contrast between
the warlike traditions of Israel concerning Egypt and Assyria

19 0

'/

A SUMMARY Of THE EVIDENCE

and those which are found in the following passage of Isaiah :
•^n that day shall Israel be the third with Egypt and with
Assyria in the midst of the earth ; for that the Lord of hosts
hath blessed them, sayilig, Blessed be Egypt ray people, and
Assyria the. work of my hand^, and Israel mine inheritance."
Israel is to conquer Egypt and' Assyria,- but to conquer them
by bringing them to the knowledge of the true God, the God-
of kindness and truth. It is tojbe a'conquest efJeited by the
gentleness of the lamb rather than by the fei'ocity of thp lion.

The Revelation of John, the beloved disciple of the Lord,
takes up this antithesis between the lion and the lamb, and
uses it in order' to trace a continuity between the Old
Dispensation and the New. " Weep not," says the' angel to
^he Seer, "the lion that' is of the tribe of Judah, the Root of
David, hath overcome." Nothing could sound more patriotic.
But the next verse speaks of " a Lamb," and we find that the
" Lion " is the " Lamb."

This " Lamb " is mentioned in connection with " the right
hand " of God. But how .' As " sitting on the right hand "
and waiting for enemies to be made His " footstool " .' No,
but as taking " from the right hand of him that sitteth on the
throne " a sealed book, " a book written within and on« the
back." So Ezekiel received from " a hand " a " roll of a book,
written within and without." The " book," says the prophet,
contains " lamentations and mourning and woe."

It is the^record and riddle of the sorrows and sufferings
through which the Old has passed, and must yet pass, into
the New. In the Qospel, the fourth evangelist writes, in the
name of Jesus, "In the world ye have tribulation, but be
of good cheer, I have overcome (lit. conquered) the world"; and
in Revelation, John writes concerning Jesus that He, the
Lion, " hath overcome (lit. conquered) to open the book" and,
immediately afterwards, that the Lion is "^ Lamb, standing,
as though it had been slain." '

The thought of this antithesis between the Old and the

A SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE

New, and of their being reconciled in the Ȥon of Man,
pervades both the Revelation of John and the Johannine
gospel, and often explains the latter, where the Writer, though
identifying himself with the disciple whom Jesus loved,
seems to be unfeirly representing Jesus as deliberately
.perplexing the Jews when He might have used plain speech.
Revelation speaks of " the Song-of Moses and of the Lamb,"
and that phrase is a key to the \Yhole Book. The Song of
• Moses near the Red Sea' says " The Lord is a Man of War " ;
the Song of the " ten thousand times ten thousand " near the
Sea -of Glass says " Worthy is the Lamb that hath been
slain." It is paradoxical to say that the two songs are one.

But this paradox is ever present with the Johannine
writer of tjie fourth gospel as being a profound truth. It is
always in his mind that no one can understand how God 'the .
Man of War can be in effect represented by " thQ Lamb that
hath been slain," unless he has taken into his heart the
humanity represented by the Son of Man and has felt, in its
constraining power, a'force able ^o pull down all transitory
empires and kingdoms and to set up one eternal kingdom
in their place. '

It is probably in the fourth gospel, when spiritualising
the language of the Revelation of John, that we shall find
th'e closest approximation in the New Testament to Christ's
actual thought about the work of the Son of Man at the
right hand of God. But how different is this glimp.se of the
actuality from the (literal notion of a descendant of David
waiting till God shall have pulverised the Gentiles and
established a world-wide dominign of the House of Judah I
The Johannine author, in his endeavour to shew tlie great
gulf that dividid the thought of Jesus from the thought of His
countrymen, dramatically paraphrases the language of both.
The people, he says, completely misundarstood the true
nature of that dominion of the Second • Adam, or Son of'
Man, or Man, which God designed when He created Man,

A SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE

^

and which the Son of Man was to acc6mplish. They failed
to understand the divine purpose, because they failed tu
understand by loving, and to love by understanding, human
nature. This_ failure he sums up by making the multitude
exclaim "Who is this 'son of man'?"

Yet it is impossible not to feel some sympathy with the
multitude. " Should not we, too, have been mystified, if we
had been in their plate ? " is a question that we may well aslj:.
And the answer is, " Probably, yes." " Then ought we not to
feel somu impatience or resentment, not indeed against
Christ, if we are Christians, but against the fourth evangelist,
who represeqts Christ as mystifying people ? "

That is a much more difficult question to answer. Perhaps
'the evangelist might defend himself somewhat in this way:
" It was so decreed. ' What I do,' said Jesus to Peter, ' thou
knowest not -now, but thou shalt know hereafter.' The same
thing was true of what Jesus said, as of what He did. It
was.a seed that died for a timeThat it might live hereafter.
This is the nature of a seed, ^nd trHs was th^ nature of the
Lord's words and deeds ; all of which were spiritual, because
He spoke according to the truth of His nature, which
was spiritual. You ^eak of ' mystifying," Is that the right
word .' If it is, ought we not to give it a new meaning, or look
at it iaa new light? Was not Peter ' mystified' for his good ?

" No doubt, the Lord Jesus might from the beginning
have descended from heaven robed in a visible splendour
of kindness and truth that should convert and conquer all
the world while He proclaimed Himself to them as their
Saviour and Messiah. Then there would have been no
mystifvjug, no darknes.s, no twilight, b.ut all day. The Lord
God^ecreed otherwise. The evening was to come before
the^orning : ' And there was evening, and there was morn-
ing, ONE DAY.'"

One word may be added as to the notion that the
multitude, in this passage, mean by this disputed phrase what

A SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE

they might have expressed by " Son of David " or " Christ."
According to that view, we might paraphrase their question
thus: "We have heard out of the Law that the Messiah
abideth for ever on earth, and how.sayest thou that the Son
of Man must be lifted up? We all "know that the Son of
Man means the Messiah. But what sort of a ' Son of Man '
is this, who is not to abide on earth and to reign over us on
earth but to be ' lifted up ' ? "

The answer is obvious. If they all " knew that the Son
of Man means the Messiah," how is it that, after Jesus has
repeatedly and publicly called Himself " the Son of Man,",
they say to Him " If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly "L-
It would also obviously have been more natural that they
should have mentioned "the Son of Man" instead of "the
Christ " (" we have heard out of the Law that the Son of
Man abideth "). Lastly, the hypothesis requires not only
that " the Son of Man " should be one of many Messianic
titles, but also that it should be one familiar to the Jews
("we all know "). But this is not the case. It is non-existent,
in this use, so far, as we know at pftsent, in the whole of,
Hebrew and early Jewish literature.

'i

/

I

CHAPTER V
"SON OF MAN" AND "SON OF GOD"

When Satan saj% to Jesus in the Temptation, " If thou
art the Son of God, command that these stones become
bread," Jesus replies, " It is written, Alan shall not live by
bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the
mouth of God." Here the Hebrew has " the adam " meaning
" the [creature called] man," and the Jerusalem Targum has
" the s3n of man."

The point.'howevcr, for us to notice is that, whereas " the
Son of God" is the title mentioned by Satan, "Man" is the
titltf mentioned by Jesus, as applying to Himself and as
determining His course, namely, to live "by every word that
pro<:eedeth out of the mouth of God."

This should be considered in connection with the other
instances in which Jesus is called " t/u Son of God" in the
Synoptic gospels, at least before the Passion. The title
always proceeds from " devils " or persons possessed — up till
the time of Peter's Confession.

Luke gives the first instance. It is in a description of
Jesus as performing a number of acts of healing and
exorcism. The parallel Matthew says nothing about the
unclean spirits as recognising Christ's origin, but adds that "
Christ's action fulfilled the words of Isaiah, " Himself took our
infirmities and carried our diseases." But Mark says " He
would not sufTer the devils to speak because titey knew him!'

»4

A SUMMARY OK THE EVIDENCE

Luke agrees. Hut he expands the last clause into " Because
they kneiv hitn to be the Christ" and he says, just before, that
the devils exclaimed as they came out, " Thou art the Son of
God!'

This indicates that, if Jesus had chosen to call Himself
"the Son of God," all would have understood that He
claimed to be " the Christ," and that He not only did not
choose this name for Himself, but also forbade others to [j've
it to Him, at all events at the bofjinning of His career.

One reason for this is suggested in the Kpistle of James,
which says that "the devils " believe in a God, "and* tremble."
" Feat " is the feeling at first inspired in the demoniac
po.ssessed. by the " Legion," who exclaims " What have we to
do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God ?"

Fear is also indicated in Mark's (and Luke's) very first
case of exorcism where the demoniac exclaims, " What have
we to do with thee, Jesus of Nazareth? Art thou come to
destroy us ? I know thee who thou art, the Holy One of
God."

In another passage, Mark, describing other demoniacs who
cried "Thou art the Son of God," says that Jesus "used to
rebuke them much (or, many times) in order that they might
not make him known." The parallel Matthew agrees, but
omits the cry, and also omits Mark's " much (or, often),"
which implies that the cry was a common one, and that.
Christ's repression of it was frequent and strenuous.

In Matthew, after the stilling of the storm by Jesus, it
is said that, according to the Revised Version, "they that were
in the boat worshipped him, saying. Of a truth, thou art the
Son of God." Bat the parallel Mark says simply " they were
.sore amazed in themselves," and adds, " for they understood
not concerning the loaves, but their heart was hardened."

Here, however, the Greek text of Matthew does not say
exactly " the Son of the [One] God " but " God's Son," which
is not exactly the same thing. It is ambiguous. All those

as

A SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE

who call God Father must necessarily call themselves " God's
sons." In the fourth gospel Jesus argues that the Jews are
unreasonable for taxing Him with blasphemy in this respect,
" Say ye of him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the
world, Thou blasphemest, because I said, I am [a] son of the
[One] God ? "

It should be observed that, in the fourth gospel, Jesus had
not verbally said in the preceding context, " I am God's Son,"
but " I and the Father arc one." Still earlier He had said,
" My Father worketh even until now, and I work," on which
the comment is, " For this cause, therefore, the Jews sought
the more to kill him because he not only brake the sabbath,
but also called God his own Father, making himself equal
with God." ,

The ho.stility of the Jews is based on their assumption
that man is not in the image of God, and that Jesus, being
nothing more than what is commonly called " a mere man " —
that is, not a Son of God like Apollo or Bacchus — neverthe-
less aimed at " equality with God," as though, to use the
Pauline phrase, it were " a prize to be caught at " — " For a
good work we stone thee not, but for blasphemy ; and because
thou, being a man, makest thyself God."

On the other hand the conduct of Jesus is based on the
assumption that man is already in the image of God, and,
when perfected by the Spirit that He felt within Himself,
will be completely conformed to God's likeness. There is no
, rivalry, or " catching at a prize," in the perfect love that
brings Man into union with God, and the Son into union
with the Father, so that the Son can say " I and the F'ather
are one."

Hence, there is no difference (according to the fourth
gospel) between the Son of God and the Son of Man, except
in respect, so to speak, of a double official aspect. The Son
is always the Son. The Spirit of S6nship is always in Him.
But " the Son of God " is the more appropriate title for Him,

26

A SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE

in respect of His divine life-giving power, when He raises the
dead ; " the Son of Man," or even " son of man " without
"the," rfiay be more appropriate, in respect of His humanity,
when He executes judgment over the'other sons of man,
knowing their nature because He Himself has been one of
them : " The dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God, And
they that hear shall live. For, as the Father hath life in
himself, even sB. gave he to //,e Son aisp to have life in
himself: and he gave him aUthofity to execute judgment
because he is son of man."

Thus we may, understand the very remarkable passage
where the fourth gospel introduces Christ's first mention
of " the son of man " coming immediately after a disciple's
mention of "the Son of God." It occars in Christ's first
utterance to what may be called the nucleus of the Church—
a little group of five or six disciples that had gathered round
Jesus in the first week of His public life. Nathanael is the
last of these, and it is to Nathanael that the promise— for it
is a promise— is specially addressed.

The passagd is full of allusions which can only be touched
on here. Nathanael is called by )esus an " Israelite without
guile." " Israelite." must have been in Aramaic (as it is in
the ancient Syriac ajid in the modern Hebrew versions) "a
son of Israel." " Israel " is the name given to Jacob, the
Supplanter, after he had seen God face to face ; and some
(including probably Origen) connected the name etymo-
logifally \yith the act of " seeing." What Jacob had " seen "
in Bethel was a rudimentary vision of "angels of God
ascending and descending " on a ladder set up on the earth,
of which " the top reached to heaven."

With this premised, we can better understand what Jesus
replies to Nathanael when, the latter, astonished at His
insight into his thoughts under "the fig-tree," exclaims
" Rabbi, thou art the Son of God." The reply is at once an
encouragement and a rebuke. Jesus does not say, as to
A- M- 27 4

\

A SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE

Peter. " Blessed art^ thou, Nathanael, for flesh and blood hath
not revealed thi? unto thee, but my Father." Nor on the
other hand does He expressly " rebuke " i^athanael as He
rebuked the demoniacs.

But -He tacitly rebukes him ; " Thou shalt .see greater
things than these." So much for Nathanael by himself
Then, including ip His promise the whole of the little
group. He adds "Ye shall see the heaven opened and the
angels of God ascending and descending on the son of
man."

How are we to write the phrase on this its first Johannine
occurrence ? As a title or "name, with capital letters, " the
Son of ^an " ? Or as an eastern expression for " man " —
with implied allusion to what is said about "man's son " or
"son of Adam " in the Scriptures — without capital letters,
" the son of marr" ?

Sometimes it is difficult to choose. For, during the

period when Jesus was, so to speak, converting the phrase

"son of man" meaning "man," into the title "Son of Man"

meaning " Man," we cannot tell whetjier He meant by it

" what you call ' the son of man,' " that is, " man," or " what /

call 'the .son of man,' " tjiat is, " Man." We may illustrate the

difference by the line in Paracelsus : —

i ■

" Progress is
^ The law of life, man is not Maii as yet."

Here, however, it seems best to write {fie phrase without
capitals, as being no title as yet, but meaning, to the disciples,
merely " man." The context appears to imply that Nathanael
has been too free in talking about " the Son of God," and
that he has yet to learn, as also have the other disciples, the
potential divinity of " man " or " the son of man " to whom
angels are but as servants and ministers of God's gifts.

Possibly, too, as has been said above, there is an analogy
between "son of Fsrael," "son of God," and "son of Adam,"
which last may have been Christ's expression for what might

28

, A SUMMARY 'OF THE EVIDENCE

be called in Greek, as being a title, " (the) Son of (the) Man."
Hut it is not necessary to believe this in order to be convinced
that, by " son of man," Jesus means a great deal more than a
mere Messianic title.

The kirid of title that contemporary Jews would have
liked their Messiah to claim may be illustrated by the one
given to a Jewish leader who headed a revolt during the
reign of Hadrian, soon after the fourth gospel was \yritfen, and
who numbered among his adherents the great Rabbi Akiba.
The name of his fatho:, or of his home, was^ Cosiba, and he
was often called Harco.sVba or Ben Cosiba. But owing to the
similarity between CosiBa and the Hebrew word meaning
a star in the prediction in. Numbers about the "star" that
would "come, out, of Jacob," R. Akiba called him Bar
Cochba, " Son of a Star." ^

• " Son of adam," on the other hand, meaning " son of
earthy man " and implying lowliness and liability to death,
might well seem to Rabbis a title that conveyed the thought
of humiliation. And accordingly R. Abbahu (about 280 A.D.)
appears to jibe at Jesus for calling Him.self by so humiliating
a title. Playingon another passage in Numbers, he suggests
that if the Pretender chose to call himself by this title, his
natural end was to suffer for it and, as he says, " to rue it."

Our conclusion is, that among many causes for the choice
of Christ's self-appellation, one was His recoil from the title of
Son of God, as it was frequently given to Him at the ou\set
of the gospel by demoniacs or lunatics, and [>erhaps some-
times'(so tMe fourth gospel suggests) by enthusiastic admirers
or convci4f like Nathanael. ' This is perfectly compatible
with the belief that Jesus knew that He was really Son of
God and that He had been called thus by a Voice from
heaven.

The whole tenor of all the gospels indicates that in His
use of words Jesus was always looking to the thing, or reality,
underlying the word. His countrymen talked freely of the
' .29 4—2

A SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE

Son of God and also of worshipping God, but they did not
know what " Son," or " God," or " worship." meant. Their
heart was far from Him. Such knowledge is from the heart
more than from the head, and Jesus quoted againjt them the
words from I.saiah, " their heart is far distant from me'."

■ The mission of the Son from the Father in heaven was
to teach the realities corresponding to these names. This
could not be done by defining but, only by personifying.
Worship means a righteous love, trust, and awe, carried to
the highest limits possible in the mind of the worshipper. It
was the object of Jesus to impart the faculty 6f such a
worship to His disciples and to decoy them, so to speak, into
worshipping God the Father in heaven by conslfaining them"
to worship unconsciously the Man, or Son of Man, on earth.

30

CHAPTER VI
"'MORE THAN THE SONS OF MAN" IN ISAIAH

-We hafve seen that the eighth Psalm speaks of the
► dominion destined for " the son of man " by God as though
it were already achieved. " Thou hast put all things under his
feet." The Epistle to the Hebrews quotes this, and says, in
effect, "It is not yet accomplished ; we see not yet all things
subjected to him," It proceeds fo say, that it was through
suffering and death that Jesus, as representative of the sons of
ipan, attained in His own person to a dominion over death
for the other sons of man ; for it " became " God " in bringing
many sons unto glory tQ make the chief-and- leader of their
salvation perfect ^through sufferings. For both< he that
sanctifieth [i.e. Jesus] and they that are sanctified are all from
, One [i.e. God] ; for which cause he [i.e. Jesus] is not ashamed
to call them brethren."* ^

What is the argument > Why did it " become " God to
inflict " suffering " on the chief-and-leader of those " sons "
whqm Jesus is bringing to " glory " .'

The argument is based on an axiom assumed here, and
sUted elsewhere in this Epistle, that " whom the Lord loveth
he chasteneth...God dealeth with you as som ;^or what son is
tlure whom his father chastentth not f " This again is based
on a fundamental passage in Deuteronomy concerning the
relations between Jehovah and His Spn, Israel, in the wilder-

3-'

A SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE

I — *

ness, "And he...sufrered thee to hunger. ..that he might make
thee know that man (Jer. Targ. t/u son of man) doth not livt
by bread alone, but by everything that proceedeth out of the
mouth of the Lord doth man live... And tliou shalt consider
in thine heart, that, as a man chasteneth his son, so the Lord
thy God chasteneth thee." ,^

In the story of Christ's Temptation in the Wilderness, the
first of these two groups of italici.sed words is put into the
mouth of Jesus both by Matthew and by Luke. Can we
doubt that the second group would also be in His mind, not
only then but throughout all His efforts to bring the 'other
sons of mam into the glory of His P'ather .' It is assumed
that man cannot be raised up to his right |>osition above the
bea.sts except by " chastening." " Man that is in honour and
understandeth not" — that is, understandeth not that all
" honour " cometh from God and through God's preparation —
" is like unto the beasts that perLsh." This preparation in-
cludes "chastening" or " suffering." It is through " suffering "
that all the sons of man are " perfected," and He, their
.Cfiief and Leader to salvation, the paramount Son of Man,
was bound not only to pass through suffering, but to be Mi-
paramount Sufferer that He might be the paramount Chief
and Lea«fer.

The reader will note how this Epistle, which begins with a
contrast between " prophets " and " Son," insists on the
sonship as the link uniting the Firstborn — "the heir of all
things," through whom God " made the worlds "-7*0 the later
born sons of man whom the Firstborn sanctifies " For both
he that sanctifieth and they that are sanctified are all from
One," that is, from one common Father. Hence we realise
how natural it is for the" writer of the fourth gospel to pass
from "son of man" to "son of God," and to "Son" absolutely.
It is- the spirit of sonship that is everything. Jesus is, as
Lirke says, " son of Adam son of God " ; so also are other
" sons o^ Adam." The former sanctifies, the latter are

3>

A SUMMARY OF THE pVIDENCE

sanctified; but all are " from One," and all must be "perfected
through suffering."

The doctrine of Isaiah concerning the Suffering Servant
was interpreted by Jews as referring to Israel smitten by God,
and spi(ttcred among the nations, in order to disseminate the
gospel of Jehovah while suffering for the sins of the world.
By Christians it was interpreted as referring to Jesus.
How did Jesus Himself interpret it .'

Probably as referring to the spiritual Israel, which He
identified with the figure like a son of man in Daniel, and the
spirit of vvKich He felt within Himself Hut He identified it
with no narrow JudaLstic or Israelitic sectarianism. He saw
the vision, as Kzekiel saw it, as " son of Adam," and He felt
that the spiritual Israel, whom Daniel saw in the act^of being
brought near, to the throne of the Ancient of Days, was not
a mere glorified Jacob or Supplanter, but a Person purified
by suffering so as to be " pure in heart " and to " .see God " as
Jacob saw God in Penuel. He was to be a genuine repre-
sentative of the seed of Abraham, in whom " all the families
of the earth," that is to say, all the .sons of Adam, were to be
bles#ed. Hence He might be called a genuine " son of
Adam " — not "f the lower Adam whose son was Cain, but of
the higher Adam, the Adam unalterably decreed by God, from
the beginning, to be perfected in the end.

Isaiah never calls the Suffering Servant, directly, " a .son
of man." Nor is there any reason why he should. For he
does not, like. Kzekiel and Daniel, see a human figure in
the "heaven or near the throne. To such a paradox Daniel
might well call attention — " One like unto a son of man and
yet so high ! " Lsaiah's view is different. He sees the sufferer
on earth, not yet " perfected." But still he too^ sees a
paradox, though of a different kind. It is the contrast
between the reality and the appearance ; between the
Servant really " exalted," and the Servant, in the eyes of the
world, " despised and rejected." The Servant ends by

33

A SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE

dividing the spoil with the strung, but he is introduced as
one " whose visaue was marred more than any man, and his
form morf than the sons of man"

Such are some of the salient |X)ints of Hebrew thought
concerning the educative or perfective view of " suffering "
for the sons of man, and concerning the axiom that all the
sons of Gad must be thus educated or perfected. They
suffice to suggest a rough outline of our Lord's doctrine,. of
which probably but a few fragmentary traits exist in the
Synoptists, but much more, and much of great value, in the
. systematic expositions of the fourth gospel.

34

CHAPTER VII

"THE SON OK MAN" HAVING "AUTHORITY"

The career of "the son of man " in the Synoptic gospels'*
may be roughly said to exhibit three phases. First, He is ,
seen claiming and partially exercising on earth that authority \
or dominion which was shadowed forth in the eighth Psalm. \
Secondly, He is seen partially rejected and predicting future
rejection, with His Passion or Suffering, in .the language of
Isaiah and Hosea. Thirdly, He is seen predicting a future
Coming with dominion and in glory, accompanied by angels,
and with some mention of clouds that recalls the language of
Daniel.

Roughly, we may say that the Johannine gospel exhibits
the same three phases but in entirely different language.
First, "authority," which, in the Synoptists appears to be
divergently interpreted, is by John carefully defined. Secondly,
the Synoptic linguage about the Passion describing a martyr's
humiliation and death, is replaced by, words signifying a
martyr's exaltation and glory. Thirdly, no mention is made
of " angels " or " clouds " in the ultimate Coming of Christ,
but only of a " glory " that has nothing to do with material
splendour. It is the glory of the divine Love making Man

35

A SUMMARY (JK THF, KVIIKfeNCE

and God one through the Son in the unity of the Father, the
Son, and the Spirit.

To bc(jin with the pha.ie of authority. The .SynoRtists
represent Jesus as claiming for " the son of man " ''authority",
to for(;ive sins. Also, at the outset of His public life, they
describe Him as exercising; "authority," but in such terms as.
to leave it in doubt whether it is of the kind l^lon(»inK to an
authoritfitivc teacher or to an exorcist havin(; " authority "
over uiltlean spirits. ' • i

• John, at the Outset of his (gospel, speaks of " authority to
become children of God," and, later on, he represents Jesu'!< as
sayin;; that He ha.* "-authority " to lay down His life as well
a.-^tv t.iUe it-a(jain. Al.so he says that thi Son ha.s received
"■authority to do judgment," not although, but " becofiseT He
is " son of jn^n."

Again, whereas the. Synoptists say that " the son pf man"
1s " lord of the sabbatli," implying that He has. authority
over it, John represents Jesus as defending His liealing on the
sabbath, not because He has authority, or " is lord," over the
sabbath, but because " my Father worketh hitherto and I
work," that is, to say, because He sees the F'ather workinj;
sabbath and weekday from the beginniitg, and He, the S(
must needs imitate the Father in works of kindness.

These contrasts shew that John felt it necessary to

explain " authority," and especially '.' authority to forgive."

It was not ',' pdwpr " — a word that J.olin never uses — a power

to forgive those wfhom one wishes to forgive and rfot to

r for[,'ive the rest. It consisted in an insight into the will of

God the F'ather and into the souls of the .sons of man, so as

■ ' to distinguish those who could, from those who could not,

receive forgiveness; and it implied in the forgiver a painful

* bearirifj of the siift of the forgiven.

A full forgiveness implied not only a casting out of the
unclean^spirit of sin but also the bringhg in of a clean 'heart
and a new spirit of righteousness. The Synoptic gospels

36 . . '

'■^

- A SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCHy

imply in a parable thatlM^|y« the Stronger entering into the
house of the Stronjjjlfat isflt Hay, into the house of Sin or
Satan) and bintling him. "nj^also expressly and repeatedly
say th4t Jesus was in t^rliabit of casting out devils. John
•never u.ses the metai/or of the Stronger Man. Nof^loes he
ever describe Jesi|^ as casting out devils. Nor does he
mention forgiving till 'after Christ's resurrection, when the
Spirit is impartedjby Him to the discipleii in order that they,
may forgive. *

Hut.^a^/Wc have seen above, Satan and Satanic powers are
dejicribed in the Bible as destructive beasts of various kinds,
and it is part of the dominion of the Son of Man "and His
" little ones " to tramjile upon the Beast in its various forms.
John sums up the ^a^jmcies of the Beast in the metaphor
of the Wolf, and describes the GootI Shepherd as contending
against the Wolf and as having "authority" to lay down His
.life for the sheep, and to take it again. Later on, he re-
pi-esents Jesus as saying " I have conquered the world."

Thus " authority " is perceived in John from the fir^ to be
a painful though a royal attribute. It belongs'to kings and
champions of Humanity. It is the power of perpetually
giving oneself for others, as God the Father does. " Forgiv-
irig " is a kind of " giving," namely, the giving of Life.

Combining the Sypbptic with the Johannine metaphor we
may say that the Son of Adam enters into' the House o/sm
and "lays down his life." in conflict. Then He rescives.it
again, and, in addition, carries away as Conqueror, in His
train, the captive sons of Adam, whom He leads forth to
a life of righteousness, having re.scued or rapsomed them
from their sinful selves.

This stupendous and mysterious process, represented by
the Passion on the Cross, corresponds to a minori Passion or
Suffering— minor, but still profoundly mysterioustfid wonder-
fully great— necessary in every act of human (qr&vencss where
the forgiver, or minister of forgiveness, perfornil the action .in

37

■

.■■' • ' / "

..*.

I.

A SUMMARi' OI' THE EVIDENCE

the spirit of Christ. There is a Pauline " spending and
• .being spent," even where there is no actual laying down

" of life. ' ^ »

• • ^

s . • »

» ■ • ■

» , ■ ■ » •

• • . * • * — X ■

»* .

• « »-.•'' » ' t '•"til '

♦ « • ^«" ■"*

• ^«> -I • ' ', ' * * *

tt

CHAPTER VIII J

"THE SON OF MAN" TO BE DESPISf:!! fJ4T) '

TO "SUFFER"

The Evangelists all represent Christ as being con-
tumcliously treated by the Pharisees and called an agent p(
Beelzebub, but Mark docs not connect the treatment with the *
title of the Son of Man. Matthew and Luke say that the '''
Son of Man was cali^ " a gluttonous man and a wine-bibber,"
apparently because He ate and drank with publicans and
sinners. Elsewhere they represent Jesus as saying " Foxes
have holes and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of
Man hath not where to lay his head." He seems to mean N
that the rulers of this world, the beasts and birds of prey, }
from Jhe meanest to the mightiest, from Herod the fox of
Galilee to the mighty eagle of Rome—all these, could make '

themselves at home under the shadow of the Prince of this
world. But the Son of Man could not thus find a home.

John expresses the same thought, not indeed mentioning
the term, nor even speaking of the Son, but implying
sonship, and says, in effect, that the Jews would havck
accepted Him if He had come in His own name and sought -
His owh glory, for they understood that kind of glory,
"seelcing glory from one another"; but they called Him
^' a Samaritan " and said that He had " a devil " because He
honoured His father. In other words, the s?lf-asscrtivc
spirit, and the narrow spirit of quasi-patriotic nationalism
. 39

A SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE

were wanting ;in Jeam (from the point of view of Hi«
countrymen).

With these, He might have obtained the recognition of the
Jewish rulers. Without these, He was rejected as a demoniac,
or as a deceiver. He could find no home among HFs people.
There is probably an allusion to thi.s homele.ssness of the Son
of Man, in John's description of Christ's breathing His last
upon the cross. The expression *• lay his head " occurs, in
the whole of the Bible, only in the passage quotejl above, jind
once in John. The latter passage describes how Jesus, who
had found no place Ho lay His head in rest during His life on
earth, found it at las< when He rested it in death, on the
bo.som of the Father.

As regards the Synoptic predictions of the Suffering, or
Passion, the most priibable explanation of the omissions and
divergences of the evangelists is that our Lord was in the
habit of quoting Isaiah's prophecy about the Suffering
Servant, combined with Hosea's prophecy about Israel smitten
by Jehovah but raised up on the third day.

The hypothesis of such an origin, besides explaining
many great difficulties in the Synoptic texts as a whole, is
also supported by very strong evidence bearing on a particular
Synoptic clause, namely, the "delivering up" of Jesus, that is,
delivering up to death. The word is ambiguous, for it might
mean 'delivered up" by Judas Iscariot, and "deliver* up" is
clearly thus used sometimes in the gospels. But the Epistle
to the Romans says 'that, Jesus ' was delivered up " for our
trespasses but raised for our justification, in such a context as
to make it clear that the writer is inferring not to the act of
Judas but to the act of God, and that he is referring to,
or quoting, the word " delivered up " used by the Septuagint
jn the last verse of the fifty-third chapter of Isaiah describing
the Suffering Servant of Jehovah:

Here we stand on solid ground. For we can have" no
doubt that such a tradition as this, reiterated in all the

40 .

A SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE

Synoptists and also found in an early and authoritative
Pauline Epistle, must represent, if any Synoptic tradition
(lues at all, not indeed what Jesus actually said, but a Greek
equivalent of what H6 said. What He actually said we must
seek in the Hebrew of Isaiah. There, Jnstead of "was
delivered up," wc find " made intercession."

The in.-kdequacy of the Greek re.ndering must not be
exagfjerated. The Hebrew presents difficulties which the
translators may have endeavoured to evade by a paraphrase, .
Z'usinlJ." delivered up " as though it impjied the delivering up
V of a Ifostage, ransom, or sacrifice. In the Pauline l*pistle — * •
when read "in the light of Pauline doctrine generally about
the Father deliverjng up the Son, »r the Son dolivering up
Himself, for the salvation of mankind — tncre is no^ very
serious inadequacy..

Hut in the gospels, if interpreted as "delivered up by
Judas," the word is seriously, we may almost s^y finally,
inadequate. It is perhaps for this reason that "delivered
up " is not placed by. John in the mouth of Jesus when
i;epeatedly predicting the Passion, but only on the very eve of
the Passion,' imd then in the words "One of you will deliver
me up," where it is clear' that the speaker is referring not
to the act of God but to the act of man. In the predictions
of His Passion, which are frequent 'in the fourth gospel,
Jesus, as we shall sec later on, uses a different phraseology
from that of ' the Synoptists, and" one that aflk'ms, and
reiterates, its intercessor^' character.

Another Synoptic pTira-se in these predictions of the
Passion of the Son of Man, is that He will be " killed " (or, in
Matthew, once, " crucified "). This comes immediately before
the words " raised up on the third day," which occur in
Hosea. Turning to Hosea we find in the jjreceding context
no mention of a word that n/c^sarify mdans " killed," but
only of a word, " sfnittenf ' that >nig/ii mean " smitten unto •
death," thereby acquiring the meaning of " killed."

A SUMMARY OK THE EVIDENCE

«•

It is rendered " killed " about a dozen times in the
Septuagint, but not in the Hosea passage under consideration.
There indeed an examination of the full context shews that
the' prophet is speaking of the whole nation so that "smitten"
cannot mean " killed." But, apart from that full context, the
words " smitten and raised up on the third day," if taken from
'Hosea and applied to an individual, might, very wall be
misunderstood as meaning " killed and raised up front '^'
dead on the third dayy"

The fact that Jesus w,as actually " killed "would naturally
predispose evangelists to "believe th^ the ambiguous word
really.meant " killed." Thus, too, we might explain Matthew's
"crucified." It may be merely another concrete interpretation
of the general and obscure term " smitten." Some may have
said " It meant killed." Matthew — that is 'to say, tlje author
of the tradition found in the gospel that we call by the name
of Matthew^may have said, " It meant a particular kind of
killing,, as we ^ know by dfe result. It meant crucified."
Such misinterpretations "^IBftiivergences would explain
John's avoidance of any such word as "kill " or "crucify" in
connection Avith Christ's predictions of the Passion.

How then, if at all, does John express these Synoptic
traditions about being " delivered up " and being " killed " or
"crucified"?

He does it by entirely departing from the letter of-the
older Greek gospels in order to go back to the spirit of the
Hebrew types and prophecies appropriated by our Lord.
More especially he desires to emphasize the voluntary and
intercessory nature of Christ's death, and the inward glory
concealed beneath the outward humiliation. This permeates
the Hebrew prophecy but is lost or greatly obscured in the
Synoptic representations of it.

^ow should John attain this object ? As regards the
portion taken from Hosea, the ' obviqus way to a prosaic
mind ^ould have been to return to Hosea's actual word and

4»

A SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE

to represent Jesus as saying mk the Son of Man would be
" smitlcn" while adding that this would be for the sake
of others.

But, if he had done this, would the Western Churches have
understood it ? It is true that Mark and Matthew represent
Jesus, in Gethsemane, as quoting from Zechariah the words
" I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered."
But Luke omitted this. And was not Luke substantially
right ? For the Hebrew of Zechariah said " Smile" not " /
will smite;' so that Jesus would app^ not to have used
exactly these words. And, even if Luke had substituted the
correct Hebrew, would not the Churches of the West have
asked, "Who gave the command to 'smite'? Surely not
God > " Was it possible to answer these questions without
putting a stumbling-block in the way of faith ?

It was possible, if the evangelists could have been allowed
to combine the quotation from Hosea with another from
Isaiah, "Surely he hath borne our griefs and carried our
sorrows : yet did we esteem him stricken, smitten by God, and '
afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was
bruised for our iniquities." ' " ,

This might h*ve helped to explain the mystery, so far as
the mystery of sin and pain can be, in this world, explained.
The Messiah wHs to be ^'smitten" by God, in appearance,
and in mens estimation; but in fact He was not to be smitten,
so to speak, by God's heart, but only by His hand and by the
agents of His hand. "Hy^ins and sinners of this world were
to be permitted to "smite" their Saviour— that He might
save them I On a smaller scale God might be said to have
" smitten Jobj' because He permitted him to be srfiitten by
th^ Adversary, for the ultimate exaltation of Job himself, and
for an example of patience to all the world.

But, though the "smiting" in Isaiah was doubtless in
Christ's mind when He quoted the "smiting" from Hosea,
the Synoptic evangelists did not allow themselves to interpo-
*" 43 .

L •

^*^ A SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE

late such an explanation. J?hn, therefore, may well have
thought that Luke was justified in his omission of this difficult
passage, only— and this is a great and perpetually recurring
difference between these two evangelists— John deemed it
desirable to insert somo substitute for what Luke omitted, and
thus to bring out the voluntary and intercessory character of
Christ's acceptance of the suffering of the Cross and also its
glorious nature.

For this^rpose he represents 'Jesus as using the word
"lifted up" tUfedict "the death by which he ■Wasigoing to die."
As the .serpent of brass was lifted up in the wilderness, so the
Son of Man is to be "lifted up" in order that He may give life
to those who look on Him. There is a play here on the double
meaning of "lifted up." In the Bible, and in Jewish literature,
it is sometimes quaintly used for being "hanged," but the
'Bible also speaks thus of the Suffering Servant in I.saiah, " He,
shall be exalted and lifted up, and shall be very high." John,
in his u.se of "lifted up," conveys these two meanings, cruci-
fixion and enthroning. >'

Another Johannine form of the prediction is that the Son
of Man was to be "glorified." Why not ? The death was to
be a glorious one. If Jesus fulfilled I.s^i^'s prediction. He was
to be " wounded for our transgrjsssions " and '! bruised for our
iniquities." Or, according to t^ie Parable of the Good Shepherd,
He was to " lay down " His life, fighting against the Wolf, not
for His own life but for the life of others. . What could be
more champion-like, more king-like, more glorious, than this?
It was the height of" glory," and so accordingly John calls it.
Here it should be added that Mark and Matthew ma'ke
up, to some extent, for their omission of the intercessory
feature^ in the predictions of the Passion, by represent
Jesus as saying that the Son of Man came not to be minist^d
unto but to minister^nd "to give his soul (or, life) as a ransom
in the place of many."

The parallel Luke omits this, and simply emphasizes the
44

A SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE

" ministering " by distinguishing " him that sitteth at meaH"
from " him that ministereth," that is, from the servant waiting
at table, and by representing Jesus as saying to the disciples,
at the Last Supper, "I am in tTie midst of you as he that
ministereth." Why does Luke omit the mention of the
"ransom"? Perhaps because of its difficulty, which is obvious
as soon as one puts the question, " To whom is the ' ransom '
paid ? "

John intervenes. And here, for once, he seems at first
sight to support Luke against Mark and Matthew by empha-
sizing Christ's "ministering" among tli'e Twelve. He repre-
sents Jesus, at the Last Supper, as actually divested of His
garments like a servant, and as waiting on the Twelve while
they sit '9t meat. But John also suggests an expiatory
character in the ministering, by the picture of Jesus symttoli-
cally wiping ofif. on the napkin with which He is girded, the
impurities on the feet of the disciples.

Elsewhere, without mentioning ran.som, John meets, •
indirectly at all events, one difficult question, " Does Christ
ransom sinners from Satan .' " He answers, " Yes, and No."

If the \yolf receives a ransom from the shepherd when the
latter sheds his blood for the flock, then, and in that sense,
and in no other, is a ransom paid. But the truth is that we
arc not so much ransomed as bought — bought or ransomed
out of chaos and disorder and sin by receiving Christ's flesh
and blood, Christ's self, into our being.

Somewhat similarly — but only somew|)at, for the metaphor /
is much colder — a .sculptor might be said to put a portion of
his soul, his living self, into a block of marble, thereby to
relea.se from it ar) imprisoned life that shall breathe life and
beauty, for ages to come, into the hearts of other sculptors,
who shall in return release other lives.

From another point of view, a verbal similarity may be
found in the Hebrew narrative (not in the English Version) of
the blessing of Abraham by Melchizedek. There our English

"45 5— »-

A SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE

Version, in its text, cjescribes both the Priest and the Patriarch
as calling the Most High God "Possessor of heaven and
earth." , But in its margin the Version gives " Maker'.' The
Hebrew Lexicon, however, gives as the meaning of the word
" get," " acquire," " buy " ; and it places, next to this passage,
one from Deuteronomy, where the English text itself has
"bought" in" a passage describing.Jehovah as "buying" Israel,
" Is not he thy Father that hath bought thee ? " God the
Father is " the Buyer " of the Universe, because He gives from
Himself both when He creates and when He sustains. So
the Son "buys" us with a price, the price of His blood, both
when He creates us anew to a new life and when He .sustains
us in the new life. We may^ay He buys us from our sinful
selves, or from our lower nature, or from something else ; at
all events He " buys " us. That is the doctrine implied by
John and expressly taught by Paul.

/

46

»'

CHAPTER IX

"THE SON OF MAN" TO BK "RAISED VI'"

The combination gf "raising up" and "on the third day"
occurs in the Old Testament nowhere except in Hosea
concerning repentant Israel, " Come, and let us return unto the
Lord... he hath smitten and he will bind us up. After two
days will he revive us : on the third day lie. will raise us up,
and we sliall live before him."

Against the supposition that Jesus applied these words to
Himself, there might be raised the following objections, each
of which needs to be met.

" In the first place," it may be urged, " the resurrection in
Hosea is not what we should call a real resurrection, that is,
the physical restoration to life of a man's dead body. It
means a national deliverance from sin and a restoration to
that life which can nowhere be found except in the presence
and favour of God (' we shall live before Him '). This," it
may be said, " is quite different from what Jesus actually
predicted. Hosea does not insert 'from the dead.' Jesus doe.s."
But Jesus does not insert " from the dead " — not at least
in His earliest predictions. To that point we shall return
presently. . Meantime, it may suffice to say that, even if the
Synoptic gospels did represent Jesus as inserting it from the
first, we could not confidently trust them as to the exact
words in which He "actually predicted" His being "raised

47

:^

A SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE

we know— or at all events have very solid ground
for believing— that they have inadequately represented what
He "actually predicted" about His intercessory sufferings.

Still less can we trust the exact accuracy of the Synoptic
traditions about " raised up on the third day" when we pass
^ their versions of another tradition (or the tradition of two
of them) about " raised up after three days," and when we
compare it with a Johannine tradition about " raising up in
three days." For the Synoptists give us the impression that
the words were not really uttered by Jesus, but were part
of a false charge brought against Him. But the fourth
gospel says that su«h words were really uttered, only mis-
understood—misunderstood by everybody, even by the dis-
ciples. The Synoptists say that "the raising up" referred to
the Temple. The fourth gospel does not deny this, but says
that the Temple meant Christ's " body."

That Jesus actually said something about the " raising up "
of a " temple " in " three days " is indicated clearly, though
indirectly, by tl|^ynoptlc accounts of Christ's trial before the
hWi priest, ajr we may almost say, not in spite of, but by
reajon of, their divergences, confusions, and omission^— which
s^ve to shew the scandal and difficulty that attached to the
'tradition and to explain why the Synoptists might naturally
have wished to omit it, or soften it down, or explain it away.
The divergences, briefly put, are as follows. Mark and
Matthew both make mention of " false witness." But they
report the accusation that Jesus said (Mark) "/ a77/ destroy "
or (Matthew) "/ am able to destroy" in connection with the
Temple. They add, as part of the accusation, 'that He spoke
about (Mark) "building another" or (Matthew) " building [//
againY after an interval of "three days." Mark distinctly
reports this as "false witness"; Matthew leaves a loop-hole
for supposing that the previous charges were falser but that
this one may not have been wholly false. Luke omits all
mention of the charge.

" . . 48

A SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE

That Jesus said " Destroy," or " Ye are destroying," and
that the false witnesses reported it as " I will destroy," can
hardly be regarded as strange, in view of the fact that
Zechariah says " Smite the shepherd," and that Jesus is re-
ported in the gospels' as quoting it in the form " I will smite."

The conclusion is almost irresistible that Jesus did say
something of this kind about the Temple; that His words
were misunderstood ; and that Luke omitted them because
they had been misunderstood and because they were liable to
be used against the Christians in a perverted form. Jesus may
have said to the priests *' Destroy ye," that isi " Go on in your
evil courses, and do your best to destroy this visible temple
made by hands, since it must needs be so." Or He may have
said, as the decree of the ^.ord, " I will destroy this temple."
Either of these things is possible and easily credible. But that
the charge should have been a mere invention of enemies is,
we may almost sa)^ incredible.

Assuming, then, that Jesus spoke about the " raising up " of
a " temple," what meaning are we to assign to it? We appear
to be doing no more than justice to the consistency, of His
spiritual doctrine by supposing that He did not mean what
Ezekiel meant, a more splendid temple of Solomon, or any
material structure. He meant THE PLACE where such spiritual
sacrifice is offered up as'plea.ses God. Isaiah said that the
Holy Oiie who " inhabiteth eternity " dwelleth also " with him
that is of a contrite and humble spirit." The Psalil^ist declared
that such a heart and spirit ar^"the sacrifices of God." Jesus
Himself (according to Matthew) on two oc<^ons quoted
against the Pharisees the words of Hosea " I w'fH have mercy
(or, kindness) and not sacrifice," thus indicating that .^an,
when good and kind, is God's temple, God's PLACE.

But man when at his b^ijt — or,' as- Browning might put it,
" rhan when Man," that is to say, " Man in his right attitude to
God " — has been repeaftedly defined above as beipg identical
ivith what is denoted by Christ's title, the Son of Man, Hence

A SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE,

we are led to the conclusion that Jesus, when He spoke of
" raising up a temple," meant " raising up the Son of IVfan."

Accordingly John says that Jesus "<(pake of the Temple
of his body," and that " when he was raised from the dead,
his disciples remembered that he spake this; and they believed
the scripture and the word that Jesus had said."
" All that we know of Johannine as well as Pauline thought
shews that Christ's " body " does not mean merely the post-
resurrectional form in which the Saviour manifestqfl Himself
to His disciples. It means also Christ's Church, His disciples.
When He died, their faith too, died, for the time. When He
was raised up. He was able to raise them up, and tljey lived
with Him. " The hour cometh and now is," said Jesus, "when
the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God ; and they
that hear shall live." One fulfilment of this prophecy came to
pass when Christy .having been raised from the dead by the
Spirit, imparted His Spirit to the disciples.

According to this view, we are to regard Jesus, when He
went up to Jerusalem, as encouraging His disciples in the
language of Hosea, saying, in effect, " Let us go up unto the
Lord to offer su(?h sacrifice as may please Him.'' '

It may be urged, as an objection, that this adoption of the
words of Hosea represents Jesus as conscious of sin and of a
necessity that Hq should be " smittep " because of sin.' Hijt
that is not, so. ■ ^ ,

We must not confuse Christ's self-identification with a
sinful people as though' it implied His self-identification with
their sin. It is our fault if we (Jo not realise the fact that
Jesus loved His countrymen no less than Moses, who was
ready to be blotted out of the book of life for the sake of
Israel, though He differed from Moses in knowing that the ■
Father could not blot out of the book of life the name of any
single human soul unjustly, not even to save all the souls of
the sons of man. We are to suppose that Jesus, like all the
great Hebrew prophets but in a greater degree, identified

5°

A SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE

Himself with Israel. He knew it was necessary that He, as
being Israel, should be " smitten." But He knew also that it
was not possible that He, as "being the Son, should not be
" raised up in three days."

And now to return to a previous objection, namely, that
no " resurrection /►-(?»« the dead" is contemplated by Hosea
and that Hosea does not in.sert "from the dead" whereas Jesus
does insert this elau.se.

It is quite true that Jesus " does insert this clause." But
how? Never in any passage recorded by the three Synoptists,
never in any direct prediction of His Pa.ssion, never in con-
nection with " three days " or " the third day," never in any
context that implies the usual allusion to Hosea, but only in
a precept, uttered by Jesus (according to Mar'k and Matthew)
to tlfree of the disciples while descending from the Mount of %
Transfiguration, bidding them not t6 disclose the vision " until
the Sob of .\Ian-aro.<!e (or, was raised) /w;« tlu dead!' Mark *

adds that the disciples "que.stioned with one another what the
arising from the dind might mean." Matthew omits this.
Luke records no precept, but simply says that the di.sciples
did not disclose what they had seen ; he says nothing about
resurrection.

« Neither Luke nor John anywhere represents the Saviour
• as predicting during His lifetime that He would be raised
from the dead. But Luke represents ^csus, after His death, as
"opening the mind" of disciples ".th'at they might understand*
tlu sfripttires" and he Continues, " And he said to them, Thus' '
it is written that the Christ should suflfer AnAim\from tlk ' '
dead OH the third dtiy." Also John says '"' Vyhen, th«i;fore, he *.' „
'was raised from the dead, Ris' di.sciples remembered that, }\e
' had said this, and they believed the'scripture and tlie vford that *'
f^kus had ^aid}^ •». , . n

# But what, according to Johnf had "/"'"•""''"? Nothing

% all, in 'definite words, about 'Himself or about His being

raised /ro»»« tlu dead, Ijut only about a " temple " to be " raised

A SI

A SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE

i

in three days." The disciples, however, taught by the actual
result, recognised that Jesus me^nt— and here it should .be
noted that "meant" is lia^e to Ijc coq^fused with "said" both
in Hebrew and in Greek— Jtliat His body or He Himself would
be i^ised up from the dead according to the scriptures. This
accordingly became a current tradition : " He meant, or said,
that He would be raised from the dead in three days, according
to the .scriptures."

Luke's representation appears to agree with what John
says about the resurrection of the " body." Only, instead of
saying that the disciples " remembered " it, or that the Spirit
of Jesus (as John says elsewhere) " brought to their remem-
brance" the saying of Jesus and "guided them into all the
truth " of it, Luke adopts a tradition that represented Jesus
Himself, after ,His resurrection, in a visible form, as com-
municating to the disciples this interpretation of His past
w^^s and of the scriptures, when they were " gathered
together" and He bade them "handle" Him.

Other passages might be quoted, shewing how the failure
of the disciples to believe that Christ was to be rai.sed from the
dead is explained as arising, not from their disbelief in His
words, but from their ignorance of the scriptures in general,
" For as yet they kne-w not the scripture how that // must needs
be fhat he should arise from the dead." And again Jesus says
to tWo disciples, not, "Why were ye so slow to believe your
Master?" but "O, fools, and slow of heart to believe a// t/ie
sayings^ that the prophets have said. Must it not needs have
been that tlic Christ should suffer the.se things [first] and [then]
enter into-l^is glory?"

But the special importance of the Johannine passage about
" three days " and the Lucan . passage (quoted above with it)
about "the third day" is this, that both of them combine
" raising up " and " three days " with mention of " scriptures,"
^and that the passage of Hosea under consideration is the only
one, in the scriptures, that contains this combination. Also

52

A SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE

the Epistle to the Corinthians in a passage that reads Hlte an
ancient form of Evidence on the Resurrection, says, " He was
raised up on tlu third day according to tlu scriptures!' The
impression left on us is that " the third day " was originally
understood to be part of the scriptural prophecy. If so, it
would seem certain that the tradition originally referred to
Hosea.

All these facts confirm the conclusion that the omission of
" from the dead " was not an accident ; that Jesus predicted a
"smiting" and a "raising up" on "the third day" in the language
of Hosea ; and that, when the ambiguous " smiting " came to
be rendered " killed," the words^from the dead" were dtca^on-
ally inserted after " raising up " to make the meaning clear,
but that this liberty was rarely taken in the earliest traditions! .
Moreover the tenor of the gospels as a whgle, and in particular
the prayer in Gethsemane, indicate that the precise nature and '
the exact duration of the " smiting " were not revealed to Jesus
along with the revelation of the " smiting " itself. If that was '
so, then we must suppose that, although He knew that the
Father would "raise" Him up, the details were hidden.
Whether the intervention was to come to Him aS to Isaa<?, or '
as to Jonah, or in some way that was without precedent in
scripture, though predicted in scripture^tljis was not revealed.

The objection, then, that Hosea's prophecy contemplated
a joint, corporate, or national resurrection, and that Christ's
predictions did not,, may be met with a direct negative <o the
latter assertion. Jesus was a patriot, loving His country with
an exceeding love, and longing to make the whole houst of
Israel a nation of priests and kings that they might be His
instruments in raising up the fallen House of Adam. He did
not think of Himself as "raised up" by God apart from Israel
or apart from Adam.

A^t the same time we do not deny that Jesus conceived of
this raising up of " the son of man " as destined to be accom-
plished in Himself, by some ijivine intervention, speedily, arid

53

A SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE

persqjially. He, Jesus of Nazareth, was to be rescued from
the jaws of death, possibly like Isaac, but more probably like
Jonah, who cried unto the Lord " out of.the belly of Sheol,"
and said, " I will look again toward, thy holy teniple."

It is very hard for us to grasp the thought of, such a
breadth of spiritualism, combined with such an intensity of
patriotism, as we find in the great Hebrew prophets. Yet we
must make the effort. For these same characteristics we may
expect to find, developed to fheir highest, in Jesus Christ. And
if we could bring ourselves by an effort of imagination to realise
the feelings of Isaiah and Hosea towards their children who
represent for them national vicissitudes ; and to see Jeremiah
wearing the yoke on his neok as the yoke of his people ; and
Ezekiel lying on _his left side to " lay the iniquity of the
hou.se of Israel upon it," and going through all the signs of a
siege in his own pirson, and recognising the fall of the Temple
in the death of bis wife, " the desire of his eyes"r-we should'
then at least apprehend the possibility that Jesus might
sometimes speak of the raising up of I.sracf, and of the true
temple of God, in connection with the raising up of Himself,
or of His own " body." . i

Indeed, this very phrase last mentioned is almost identical
with what Isaiah appears to say, though in obscure langua|.,'e,
"Thy dead shall live; my dead body, they shall arise!' This
h^s been paraphrased as follows, " The Gentiles, being dead
in their sins, shall, »»ith my dead body, when it rises again,
rise again also from their death. Nay, they shall nse agai^,.
my body—thit is, as part of myself, and my body mystical."
On the other hand, a tradition in the Babylonian Talmud
suggests that the "dead" here mentioned \>y Isaiah may be
those. whom Ezekiel cau.'Sed— in a vision— to live again in the
valley of dry bones. But the point is not that " the dead" are
those of Israel or those' of the Gentiles, but that they are
identified by theVrophet with his own "body" rising from the
dead.

S4

A SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE

What Isaiah thus said, and what Jeremiah and Ezekiel
did, should prepare us for anticipating that our Lord also
would say and do— as a Jewish patriot and a prophet, stilt
more perhaps as a Jewish' Messiah— many things strange to
western and modern thought and not to be strictly inter-
preted by western and modern canons of interpretation.

A'

55

CHAPTER X

•'ON rHK THfRD DAY"

Those who deny the existence of any allusion to Hosea
in Christ's words about being " raised on the third ^ay" may
argue that He simply and miraculously predicted what
actually and miraculously came to pass on that day, namely,
His bodily resurrection. " It is true that Christ thought of
His body as the Temple, and spoke of it as ' this temple' in
the fourth gospel. It is true also that the Temple means the
Church of Christ. But He merely thought of the literal future
event, which He exactly foreknew, namely, that His body, in
the literal sense, would be raised on the third day, in the literal
sense. There is a coincidence of words, but no connection in
thought, no allusive connection, between the words of Jesus
and those of Hosea. Nor is there any traditional or Biblical
connection between ' third day ' and ' temple.' "

The former part of this objection might Be met in two
ways, by an appeal to authority, or by an appeal to common
sense. Many of my readers will probably think the. latter
appeal pfficiently strong. It is incredible that such a strange
combination as "raised up on the third day" should be
repeatedly used by Jesus, and often in connection with the
scriptures, without any allusion to its unique use in the
scriptures.

The latter part of the objection is met by a consensus of
facts indicating that Hebrew thought, from a very early date,

S6

A SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE

recognised an association of "the third day," if not with-
" temple," at all events with the essential characteristic of a
temple, the offering of sacrifice.

The connectign is sometimes mystical, but it may have
also been practical. Hosea addressed his prophecies to the
Ncirthern Kingdom, that is, Israel (not Judah). This would
include Galilee. Joscphus tells us that it was a journey of
" three days " from Galilee to Jerusalem. The fltle of Hosea's
prophecy tells us that he prophesied under Hezekiah, and it
was in Hezekiah's time that a message was sent to the
remnants of the northern tribes, invitin^hem to come up to
the Passover at Jerusalem. Such an inflation the Prophet
may have urged his countrymen to accept, at the same time
adding God's warning as to the right kind of ofTering, "1 will
have mercy and not .sjuf^ce." Jesus is said by Matthew to
have quoted these last words twice ; and the .saying ; on the
'third day he will rai.sc us up" comes, in Hosea, almost
irrimediatcly before them.

Again, looking at the matt*^mystically, and believing that
Jesus regarded as a temple or church any gathering of faith- '
ful souls, even though it were but " two or three," when- united
in the Name of the Fatheif we cannot but think that in His
view, Abr^h^m and Isaac went as it were to a "temple " on
Mount MOriah. For they went "do/A of tliem together',' that
is, as a Jewish tradition says, "with one heart," to offer a
sacrifice of supreme faith in which the father virtually sacrificed
himself with his son. Now the preceding context .says that
.■Xbraham "on the third day lifted up his eyes and saw the
place afar off."

Philo, commenting on this passage, connects "the third
day" with the offering up to God of that "tribute," or "perfect
debt," which constitutes a perfect sacrifice. He is probably
alluding to the precept given to Abraham " Be thou perfect;'
and he says, in his abstract fashion, that the Mind is
"fierfected" and pays the "perfect-debt" to the "perfecting"

SI

A SUMMARY OK THE EVIDKNCE

God when it comes " on the third day " to '" the place " that
God prescribed.

With thi!! we may compare a combination of " perfected "
with "the third day" in a very different author'Luke : "1 cast
out devils and perform cures to-day and to-morrow, and the
third day I am perfected." This refers to Christ's sacrifice on
the Cross in Jerusalem, as is shewn by the following words,
" Ilowbeit, I must go on my way to-day and to-morrow, and
the next day, for it cannot be that a prophet perish out of
Jerusalem."

In order to connect this.with Hosea-it remains to shew
that Jesus uttered these Jprds in Galilee whence Jeru.salem
would be distant "a three days' journey." This is niade
almo.st certain by an immediately preceding saying of the
Pharisees, "Get thee out. anS go hence, for Herod would fain
kill thee." Herod was the tctrarch of Galilee and Pcraea, and
it 'appears reasonable to infer that the words meant, in effect,
"Get thee out, and go from Galilee."

Origcn and Jerome both interpreted the prophecy of Hosea
as ftrlfilled in the resurrection of Christ. But the earliest
Christian interpretations of, "the third day " might naturally
be influenced by what was believed to have happened literally
in the rising again of " the body " of the Saviour. And sjub-
sequcntly, Greek ^d Roman Christians— without Origen's
knowledge, or even Jerome's knowledge, of Hebrew thought
and tradition— could hardly be expected to realise the
intensity of feeling with which Jesus identified His "body"
with the nation of Israel and the Tfcmplc of God.

VVc may perhaps be helped to understand our Lord's
meaning, when He first uttered to His disciples the prediction
of " the third day," by comparing it (as Origcn compares the
saying of Ho.sea) with the words of Moses before the Exodus,
" Let us go... three days journey into the wilderness, and sacri-
fice unto the Lord our Cud" only supposing them to be
addressed, not to Pharaoh, but to Israel, encouraging the

S8

A SUMMARY' OF THE EVIDENCE

timorous people to go forth through unknown trials and
temptations to the uUimate presence of God.

Or, still better, Christ's reiterated predictions — saying, in
effect, that He must go up to Jerusalem, and be delivered up
as a sacrifice, and be smitten, and be raised up on the third
day — may be compared with the confidence of Abraham,
" on the third d^." As Origen suggests, the Patriarch was
aware that an insoluble problem might be put to him, "If you
are going to sacrifice Isaac, how can you come back with
him ? " He could not s{)lve it. But he believed that God
could solve it. Hence, while taking Lsaac away with him
from the servants to his apparent death, he dared to say to
them " IVe will worship and come again to you." He left it
to God to "see" to the solution of the insoluble, "as it is .saicj^
to this day. In the mount of the Lord it will he seen." \'^

It was apparently in a similar conviction that our Lord
uttered the prediction that " the son of man " would be
"raised up on' the third day." He did not think of Himself
apart from the Father, or apart from the sons of man whom
He came to save. He was al.so conscious of a Spirit within
Himself, which could not f)ossibly be " holden " by the bonds
of " death," and could not return to the Frfther until it had
accomplished the Father's will.

Our conclusion, so far as it is negative, is, that variations
of Christ's prophecy concerning His resurrection arose, partly,
perhaps, out of His own variations of the words, as He drew
near the end, but partly also out of various we.stern interpreta-
tions of eastern language, most of which ignored the national
significance of the prophecy.
t Some of these diverged to what rriight seem to us a purely
individualistic exposition, connecting the thought with Jonah.
Yet even Jonah may well have been regarded by a Jewish
prophet as the type of Israel sent forth by Jehovah to preach
the gospel to the Gentiles, and raised from the belly of Sheol
for that purpose after he had lain in it three days and
A. M. '59 6

A SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE

three nights. No doubt the*11tbul " three days and three
nights " is inconsistent with Hosea's literal " after two days "
and "on the third day." But these literal inconsistencies
would hardly have prevented any late^r Jewish prophet or
Messiah from applying both prophecies to the same event in
a spiritual sense.

So far as it is positive, our conclusion is, that John ^ a
safer guide than Mark and Matthew, and much safer than
Luke, to what Chrjsf actually thought — whatever may have
been the precise words that He said — about His resurrection.
Hosea did not mention the temple, aijd therefore Jesus iViay
not have mentioned it, as a rule, when He spoke of His being
raised up " on the third day." But we conclude that He
habitually thought of the temple, and that on at least one
occasion He spoke of it ; and this, in such terms as to convey
to His enemies the impression that He actually believed
Himself to be able, and peihaps to be destined, to destroy the
.staViding structure and to raise up another.

60

CHAPTER XI " •_

^"THE SON OF MAN COMING" WITH "ANGELS,"
"CLOUDS," AND "POWER" " ',

Passinc; to the third phase of the career of "the son of
man," that of victory, we find all the Synoptists connecting it
with "anfjels," "clouds," and "power." They add "glory,"
but of that we will speak in the nixt chapter. The language, at
all events so far ts regards ^he " clouds," is borrowed'frGm
Daniel, but not'correctly. Daniel speaks of " one like unto a
.son (tf man," who is " brought near " to the Throne, " with the
clouds of heaven." The' Synoptists (except in one passage of
Mark) do not give correctly the difficult preposition " with."

Many questions arise— not on? of which can be more than
touched on here— as to the nature and time of the Coming, the
nature of the angels, the meaning of "clouds," whether literal
or symbolical, and the meaning of the notion of accompaniment
implied in " with"— whether it implies merely a scenic train
of triumph, or has some spiritual significance.

The evidence, which is necessarily too technical and detailed
to give here, points to the following conclusions.

The " Coming," although doubtless contemplated as made
visible to the human eye, was rather of the nature of a self-
revealing or self-manifesting than a motion from place to
place. It was a coming into the heart. The Targum often
speaks of God's "being iiianifestid, or revealed" or "revealing
Himself; where the Bible speaks of His "coming." The Epistle

6i 6—2

A SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE

of John says, "We know that if he [i.e. God] shall be Atani/esled
we shall be like him, for we shall see him even as he is^' and the
Epistle to the Colossians, ".Whan Christ .shall be manifested,
[he who is] our life, then also ye, with him, will be manifested
in glory." This appears to refer to the Coming of the King-
dom,'when the righteous shall shine forth, in glory, arid, as
Clement of Rome says, "shall be manifested in the visitation of
the Kingdom of God." '

As regards the " clouds," evidence Can be brought from
Jewish literature as well as from Orlgen and others to
shpw that they symbolize the whole army of the prophets
and holy ones of the Chosen People, lit up by the glory
of the Sun of Righteousness, and accompanying Israel,*, ^
or the Messiah, toward the throne in heaven. . And some
connection of this kind, between " clouds," and " saints,"
appears to be implied in the first Epistle to the The.ssalonians.
Probably, too, "power," which often means in Hebrew as well
as in English " an armed- host," has that meanipg here,
referring to the army of the " holy ones," or " saints " of the
Elect.

But a great difficulty presents itself m the mention of the
" angels," or " holy angels," mentioned by the Synoptists as
though they were assessors with the Messiah in judgment.
For Paul says to the Corinthians, " Know ye not that we shall
judge angels ? " but never speaks of " angels " as themselves
judging mep, or even taking ^part in'the>'judgment. Moreover
the first Epistle to the Thessalonians speaks of " the Coming
of our Lord with all hfs* holy ones,"— or, as our Revised
Version has it, " with all his saints," this being its habitudi
rendering of the Pauline " holy ones."

It is true that the second Epistle to the Thessalonians
(which is perhaps not quite so safe an authority as the first)
speaks of "the revelation of the Lord Jesus from heaven render-
ing vengeance with the angels of his power in flaming fire." B|it
these appear to be similar to the "evil angels" or "angels of

62

A SUMMARY OF THE" EVIDENCE

nek

evil" mentioned by the Psalmist as sent against the Egyptians.
Milton might perhaps call them "slavish officers of vengeance."
In any ca.se they tlo not appear to be identical with "the holy
angels." The same context sjteaks of the time " when he [i.e.
Christ] shall come to be glorified in his hojy ones (or, saints)."
It can also be shewn that a confusion between " holy fines"
and "angels*" might very easily arise, and has in some cases
I actually occurred.

The conclusion arrived at, after a detailed analysis of the
evidence, is, that " the ,angels " connected in the Synoptic
gospels with Christ's Coming, were originally " the holy, ones "
or "the saints" (not "angels" in the ordinary senso); that these
are also represented by " the clouds of heaven " ; and that
Jesus had in view the dominion lif "the saints" personified by
"one like unto a son of man," which was predicted by Daniel.
This corporate Mngdom w.-is implied by the preposition "with!'
When 'IwUA" was changed to "above" or "in" the notion of,
a joint or cor|x3ratc dominion of the Messiah with His saints
vanished out of the <»ords. ' '

. This misunderstanding appears to' have led to various
interpretations, explanations, and divergences in the Synop-
tist.s. Some evangelists might regard the "angels" as executors
of wrath, anc^ as distinct from the " holy ones " or " saints "
who are participators in glory and co-assessors in judgment.
Some might suppose that there were two acts of Coming,
one, in wrath, to de«troy ; one, in [icace, to rqign.
, As regards the time of the Coming there is also great
divergence, and one. most remarkable omission, as follows ; —
Mark and Matthew say that the time is not knows to anyone,
not even to the angels, not even to " the Son," but only to
" the Father." This absolute use of " the Son " and " the
Father," almost non-occurrent in Mark and Matthew, throws
doubt on the passage. Luke omits this saying.

Passing from the three gospels to the fourth, we find John
adopting his usual course of departing entirely from the

63

A Summary ok the evidenck-

Synoptic Unguagi— »o much so that he nowhere in his-gospel
mentions," cloud," or even "power." But he implies the
presence of the " clouds," Christ's followers, whom He will
draw with Himself, or through Himself, to the, throne of the
Father in whose bosom He Himself eternally is.

As.'for " power," the power of a conquering king, what
can be stronger than the words " In the world ye have
tribulation. But be of good cheer, I have 'conquered the
, world " ?

As to " the^ngcls," John nowhere 'mentions them collec-
tively except once, and then, not at the close, nor in
• connection with victory, or judgment, or coming again, but at
the very outset of the gospel, and in connection with the
very first mention of "the son of man" on whom (it is said)
» "the angels of God" will be seen " a.scending and descending."
Subsequently John describes the multitude as mistaking the
Voice of the Father from heaven, #iomc for that of thunder,
some for that of " an angel " ; and he speaks of " two angels "
as .seen by Mary Magdalene in the tomb of the ri.sen Saviour.
These three are^all the Johannine instances of the word.

This subordination of angels is in a(;cordancc with the
best Hebrew and'Jewish theology and with the doctrine of the
■ Pauline Epistles, which is, as has befen said above, that the
" holy ones " or " saints " are to judge " angels," not that
"angels" are to judge them or other human beings. The
authority to judge could hardly (it wpuld seem) be given to
an angel, if it is correctly said in the fourth gosjiel to be
given to the Son " because he is son of man."

The a.ssessorship of " the holy ones " is also implied in
the fourth gospel. Or, to speak more exactly, John includes
it in a broader view of their abiding unity with the Son who
.made them one with Himself. This is variously expressed in
the New Testament. Paul says to the Thessalonians that
" we" — that is, the saints living and departed — are to be "ever
with the Lord." Revelation says that they are to "follow the

64

A SUMMARY OK THE EVIDKNCK

I
Lamb whithersoever he Roeth." The fourth gospel expresses
this still more strongly in the prayer of the Sonjto the
Father, "that they may all be- one, even as thou, I'ather, [art)
in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us " This is
a prayer— Jesus %5>s— not for the apostles alone but ■• for
them also that are to believe on me through their word," that
is, for all the holy ones or saints, of the Church of Christ,
'f therefore Christ is to come to judge, we are ap|)arently
justified in saying that He«annot come without them.

Concerning the " coming," John is systimatically v.igue
as to the time of it, and definite as to the natuit of it. The
Logon, or Word, is always "coming into the world." When-
ever it comes, it gives light ami life to those who receive it,
but judgment to those who flee fron it and reject it. John
nowhere contradicts the Marcan tradition that the time of the
Coining is not known "even to the Sou." Hut he gives us
Vie impression that whatever the Son may not know on the
subject is not worth knowing, or else that the time of the
Coming depends on the Son f Jimself and is left by Him an
open question.

The very last words of Christ uttered on earth refer
to this subject, but refer to it as if it were unimi<ortant.
They are addressed to I'eter (in answer to his (piestion
about the beloved disciple), " If I will that he tarry till I
come, what [is that] to thee? follow thou me." This
seems to say, " Leave speculations about things not in
your hands, and turn to practice, which is in your h^nds."
This .sgunds like a version, applied to the New "Law. of
the great saying in Deuteronomy ^bout the Old Law:
" The secret things belong unto the Lord our God, but the
things that are revcSled belong unto u.s."

But if John is vague as to the time, he is most definite
and practical as to the nature, of the Lord's Coming. It is of
two kinds. For the lovers of darkness it is the Coming of a
convicting Spirit which will convict the world of error. For

65

A SUMMARY OK THE Kv/l>EN('K

the lovers of light, who love the Son, and who keep His word
by JovinR one another, it is the Coniinfi; of that same One,
yet I'lural, Power, which at the beKinning said, " Let US
make man," and which now again says'WK>speakinB thtough
the Son as follows, " If any one Ihve me he will keep my
Word, and my Father will love him, and WK will come unto

him, and make our abidin(j4ijflj|k.with. him,"

It is implied by the preceding context that this WE is not
exactly the Father and the I'ersoii whom Jesus began by
calling "the son of man." Nor is that I'erson merely." tHfc
son of man" in a new character, working in a oew phase or
aspect. The Son deslribes it as " Another, a I'aractete," that
is to say, "One called in to help." Just before this. He says,
" What.soever ye shall ask in my namd, that will 1 do, that the
Father may be glorified in the Son." Just after it; He says,
" I will not leave you orphans, I come unto, you."
• The discourse in which these utterances find a place
begins with the words, " Now is the Son of Man glorified and
God is glorified in him." This is the last mention of the
title. " The Son of Man " i^ so to speak, on the point of
retiring into the backgroimd while ' the Son of God," or " the
Son," comes forward to take its place. But the disciples are
unwilling to give up their Master under His old human title.
They feel as though they will 'be " orphans " without it. To
prevent this, " Another, a Friend called in to help " is to be
sent by Him. That this is " Another Self" is indicated by
its identity with " I "— " /will not leave you orphans, / come
unto you." It is the Spirit of Sonship which whosoever has
can never feel an "orphan."

We may illustrate this promise of the divine Spirit by
what Epictetus represents Zeus as saying to Man . — " I have
given thee some portion of ourselves." This is similar on
the surface, but with how great a dissimilarity of thought
beneath! For this Epictetian gift of a "portion" of the
divine nature is " the faculty that deals with mental impulses

66

A SUMMARY OK THE EVIDENCE

and repulsions, 'with ii)clinati*)ns and declinations, and, in
a word, wit(i the imaginations and hnpressions of the mind."
But the Johanninc gift of Chris* is not regarded as "a portion."
It is the presence of the One,Kt(ynal God in the heart of
man tfcVealed as Father and Son in a Spirit of Love. And
it is this Johannine." coming in love " which corresponds to
the Synaptic "coming in glory."

t
67

f

« '

CHAPTER XII

"THK SON OF MAN" IN,"(;l.ORY"

This wprti, " love " — combined with the word "glory" at
the conclusion of the last chapter— brings us naturally to the
crowning proof of the spiritual accuracy of the fourth gospel,
in giving the tenor of Christ's dtbctrine, as compared with
the greater verbal accuracy of the three gospels, in reporting
His isolated sayings. For the sum of Christ's doctrine about
God's "glory" appears to have been this— that it consists
in righteous love. The Gospel reduces to practice in the
person of the Son the old Hebrew theory of the personality
of the true God, as being the Nursing F"ather, whose glory it
is to love and to give at His own cost ; whereas it is the
glory of the false gods, " thieves and robbers," the " foxes "
and vultures, the "wolf," the" serixjnts and scorpions,' the
" beasts " of various kinds, to hate, and to seize, and to
oppress, and to destroy.

This truth peeps out, even in Mark, here and there in '
short answers to the question, " who is the greatest f " and in
sayings about " the rulers of this worltK' at Contrastfed with
rulefs in the Christian community. ;Pfie truth >s also latent
in the Synoptic doctrine about receiving "little children,")that
is, the "babes and sucklings," whom Christ loves, and repre-
sents, and s«nds to represent Himself.

But the Synoptists do not adequately set it forth,
especially in view of the fact that they write in Greek, and

68

^ A SUMMARY OF THE EVinRNCE *

use, for " glory," it word that most naturally means "seeming,"
"opinion," or " reputation," and is seldom used to represent,
in the highest sense, "worthy renown. ' And this inadequacy
seriously iHipairs the spiritual profit of their reports of
Christ's sayings about the c;oming of the Son of Man in
" K'ory-"

Mark's clearest lesson oh the subject Ls in his account of
the petition of the sons of Zebedee, "Grant that we may sit,
one on thy right hand and one on thy left, in thy glory"
Jesus replies, " Ye know hot what ye ask," and proceetis ^p
ask whether they can drink His "cup" and be baptized with •
His "baptism." That ought to have been instructive as, to
the meaning of Christ's "glory." Hut Matthew has "king-
<lom " instead of " glory," and Luke omits the whole incident.
John deals systematically and consetutively with the
word. Heginning in liis prologue, ho .strikes the Hebrew
note, above mentioned, by^his (irst use of the term a.s being
" tlu glory as of ihc unly-begotiin from llie Fatlur" ; then he
hastens to tell us. that it consisted of "grace and truth" that is
to say, of (Ifxl's gracious giving and (iod's truthful adherence
to promises, described in (ienesis as God's " kindness and
truth." Then, without actually mentioning the Nursing
Father, he suggests Him thus : "No man hath seen God at any
time ; the only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father,
he hath declared him."

This is not the place to shew, in detail, how system-
atically the exposition, here commenced, is continued through
t(ie gospel, b<ith in negative and in positive forms. Negatively,
the wrong glory, " the glory of men," is described as that
which men seek for themselves^or receive from one another.
Positively, the right glory is suggested in the mysterious
mention of " the son of man " as being " glorified " on the
cross, or through the cross. And finally, in the Last
Prayer, it is indicated that the true '• glory " is the »<KQal
Love between the Father and the Son ; as to whic|<the Son

69 /

St**

.»

' * f f

»

A SUHMARV Of THE EVIDENCE

I ■ t. %

* V tP'^y to the Father for His dUciplcs, "That they may behold

/% ^ my glory, which thou jiast given me; for thou lovcdst me
^ »', before the foundation of the world."

_S Briefly, the Johannine doctrine amounts to this, that the

' S<i B'ory "f (iod the Father consists in making men willing and

\» I Kiik to love Ilim alid one another. To effect-this came the

* S<>n of God, as "son of man," that is, as a human being,

, \ raising the standard of human love by constraining a few—

*• at- first only a very few — to receive Him into their hearts.

.» *|* Receiving Him, they received, along wit)i Him, a new kind of

t love, that kind of love with ^which He loved them, a new

faculty of loving Man, and, through Man, God. '

At first the new faculty was not fully developed.- In the
minds of the disciples, a great gulf at first divided God in
heaven (whom they feared rather than loved, so that they did
not rightly worship Him) from Him who called Himself "the .
, son of m&n " on earth — -whom they loved, trusted and

reverenced, without any touch of unworthy fear, in such
i^ manner, and to such a degree, that unconsciously they
almost paid Him what might be called that pure and righteous
worship which is dfle to God alone.
'. ' But the gulf was bridged by death. Under the mysterious

, and awe-inspiring influence of that instrumentality of God,

He who had called Himself ".son of man" now appeared,
revealed in the glory of His Spirit, the Spirit of love, as
' ^ being the Son of God. Now, they worshipped Him accord-
ingly as Son of God, and as one with the Father in heavert.
"But they could not 4:ast out from their worship that new
'element of love, the Ibve that they had learned to feel for
Him as " son of man " on earth. Thus, along with their higher .
revelation of thtv meaning of " son of man," they received'
also a higher standard of worship, a higher conception of God, •
and a deeper insight into the unity of that which is divinely
human and humanly divine.

70

PART II

A HARMONY OF THE FACTS

/

, •

/

r

■ «

r

/

.1

CHAPTER I .
JESUS AND THK TEMPLE ,

The evidence', of which a summary has been (jiven in
Part I of this work,' indicates that Christ's self-appellation
" son of man'" was sii(j{jested by more causes than one, and
was used with more meanings than one, or with different
shades of meaning corresponding to developments of the
pu/pose of Christ's career ; but always pointing back to tW
thought of "Man according to God's intention," or* "divine
Humanity."

An attempt will now be made to shew that this explana-
tion Harmonizes with the leading characteristics'of Christ's life
and with our knowledge of His environment and antecedents.

We, must endeavour to realise some of these, or at all
events th? narratives that profess to describe tjiem. Let us
imagine ourselves in the midst of a congregation in a Galilayah
synagogue listening to a new prophet or teacher. He declares
that the words of Isainh, which he has ju.st read aloud to us.

' This and the folluwInK chapters are almost- identical with the last
chapter of a lar^'er work !>y the author entitled The Son of Man^ now in
, the press. Hut the f(K>tnotes in the latter have been cancelled, or gi-eatly
condensed and placed at the end, in the present volume. ^

"The evidence" above mentioned means the evidence collected in lh«
larger work. » .

* ".Son of man." In this and the following' chapters, "son of
I man " is very frequently printed in mverted commas and Vithout
capitals, so as to help the reader to,keep an open mind as to the meiViing
of the title. ' .

73

x.

A HARMONY OF THE FACTS

are fulfilled in him ; that the Spirit of the Lord is on him ;
and that he has been anointed to fulfil good news, to proclaim
release for the captives and liberty for the oppressed, " to
proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord,"

At this point, according to Luke, Jesys stops, having read
only what amounts to a verse and Jf half in our English
Version. It Wc^^sual to read mort-^en when the reading
was accompanie^vith interpretation. Perhaps Luke gives us
merelyHhe opening words of the Lesson. , But eveji supposing
Jesus to have read no more, we must suppose — if we are to
imagine ourselves Jews in the presence of a Jewish teacher —
that both speaker and hearers were familiar with the words of
the fourth verse, predicting that ^ in the happy future men
would " build the old wastes " and repai|) " the desolations of
many~ generations."

What meaning should we, Galilaeans, and what would the
Teacher, b^ likely to attach to the words " release," " captives,"
" liberty," " build " ? Neither in the days of Isaiah, nor in those
of Jesus, was Judah captive, or the Temple destroyed. Yet
in Christ's time the Galilaeans, under the yoke of- Herod and
under, the shadow of Rome, felt, vaguely perhaps, that in
more ways than one, the nation needed' " liberty " and
" building."

Among other indications of dissatisfaction with what may
be called the Established Church of the Jews, is the existence
of the sect of the Essenes, which had arisen about a century
and a half before the birth jof Christ. Their piety is attested
by Philo, Josephus, and Pliny. Yet these men, according to
Jose'phus, though sending offerings to the Temple, f)erformed
sacrifices " with an essential difference (or, incompatibility) of
purificatory rites," so that they were " excluded from the
national Temple-court and performed their sacrifices by them-
selves." What would be the new prophet's attitude towards
the Temple ? And how v^^ld he propose to " build the old
wastes"? -- '^ - . ,

74 .

^C

A HARMONY OF THE FACTS

According to Luke, Jesus, on reaching the age of twelve,
was taken up to Jerusalem by "his parents" to the feast of
the Passover. On the return journey, being missed and
sought by them, and found in the Temple, hearing the Rabbis
and asking them questions. He said, " How is it that ya
sought me ? Knew ye not that I must be in the [house] of
my Father?"

According to John, when the man, Jesus, began His public
life — as distinct from His manifestation at Cana to the small
circle of His 4isciples— ^He went up to the Temple and to the
Passofer, but with very different feelings from those assigned
to the boy Jesus, in Luke. The Temple, indeed. He still calls
" my Father's house." But He is in no mood now for " asking
questions." He declares that it has been made " a house of
traffic," and He purifies it by expelling the traffickers. The
disciples, after His resurrection — recalling the fervour that
had then brought Hipi into collision with the rulers of the
people, ending in His death — " remembered that it was written,
The zeal for thine house shall devour me."

These two narratives, even though it may be impossible to
accept them as accurate in detail and as historical proofs, may
be regarded as illustrations (when taken with their contexts)
of a fact, capable of being proved by a multitude of passages
but too often, forgotten, namely, that Jesus was what would
commonly be called a zealot and a mystic, wholly absorbed
in God, and that He was also absorbed — as we might expect
a pious Jew ta be — ^in zeal for God's Temple.

But it was for the Temple as God's house, not for the
temple rebuilt in effect by Herod and desecrated by priestly
monopolies. " Doves," says a Jewish tradition, " were at one
time sold at 'Jerusalem for pence of gold. Whereupon Rabban
Simeon Ben CTamaliel said, ' By this temple, I will not lie
down this night, unless they be sold for pence of silver'...
whereby doves were sold that very day for two farthings." If
Mary had been compelled to pay in " pence of gold " for her
A.II. .75 7

A HARMONY OF THE FACTS

"doves" at the purification, it was an oppression likely to be
often mentioned iii the household, and very likely to make a
profound impression on the boyhood and manhood of Jesus.
All the evangelists agree that He protested against desecration
of some kind arising out of the sacrifices. The three Synoptists
say that He predicted that the polluted building would be
destroyed; John says that He uttered the mysterious words,
" Destroy this temple," and that He really " spake of the
temple of his body"; Mark afterwards says that He was
accused of threatening to destroy the then standing temple
and to " build another not made with hands "; Matthew omits
"another" and "not made with hands"; John speaks of
" raising another," and he, though omitting " not made with
hands," seems to imply it, or something like it, in his inter-
pretation (" his body "). Luke omits the whole.

These verbal minutiae might be passed over by an impatient
critic as not rewarding study. But they may be of the very
greatest importance. For all these passages in Matthew, Mark,
and John, contain a mention of an interval of " three days" and
indicate (as has been shewn above) an allusion to Hosea's
prophecy about repentant Israel on "the third day'.' Israel was
apfui^^y regarded by Jesus as the type of the true "temple"
of the Lord. Mark (and perhaps Matthew) misunderstood
this. John understood and endeavoured to explain it.

It is not, perhaps, unnatural that Luke, taking "temple"
and " three days " literally and believing the words to embody
a false aJ|isgyon, omitted them, both in his record of the
trial ai^Hrterwards in his account of the crucifixion. But
the go^^Bri^ence is very strong for their retention, and it is
confifl|^y the Pauline metaphors about the Church as
being ^*tljf body " of Christ. The most natural explanation
of these, and of the way in which they are introduced in
the several epistles, is that they are not an addition to,
bat an exposition of, some actual doctrine of Christ con-
cerning the Temple as represented by a Person.

76

A HARMONY OF THE FACTS

The way for such a doctrine had been prepared by Isaiah's
words " I dwell in the high and holy place, with him also that
is of a contrite and humble spirit," and by the words of the
Psalmist concerning "the sacrifices of God" as being "a
broken spirit " or " a broken and a contrite heart " ; for the
prophet implied that if "the high and lofty One that
inh^biteth eternity " may be s^id to inhabit any oth'er place
at all, that place is a human being, a son of man ; and the
Psalmist adds that in such a temple "the sacrifices of God"
are offered.

But none of the prophets or psalmists had done much
mor^than touch lightly and negatively on the inadequacy of
the temple, or of any temple, to be called ^ouse of Him
that inhabiteth eternity. And Ezekiel— whoa position with
regard to the temple then standing and about to fall, was in
iftany respects parallel to that of Jesus— seemed rather to
emphasize the importance of the material structure. For he
devotes several chapters to measurements for the new building,
concerning which the voice of " a man " says to him " Son of
man, this is the place of my throne... where I will dwell in
the midst of the children of Israel for ever."

Later on, however, Zechariah seems to indicate an un-
willingness to admit that the New Jerusalem should be
"measured" since it was to be inhabited "village fashion," »
that is, " without walls." Early Jewish tradition comments on
this, and on Ezekiel's new name for Jerusalem, " The name of
the city from that day shall be. The Lord is there (Jihovah-
Shammah)." This it slightly alters so as to be " The Lord is
her name (shma/i)" adding, " Three are called by the name of
the Holy One, blessed be He, and these are they, the
Righteous, Messiah, and Jerusalem." By " the Righteous " is
meant the class described by Isaiah thus, " Every one that is
called by my name, and whom I have created for my gloiy ;

I have formed him, yea, I have made him " ; but there is an

»

1 77 - 7— »

A HARMONY OF THE FACTS

emdtnt reference to " Israel," or " Jacob," who is previously
described as "called," "created," and "formed," by God.

This tradition sortiewhat softens the paradox of the
astonishing Pauline statement that " all Israel will be saved."
The Jewish notions — or at all events expressions — of person-
ality and of nationality seem to have been different from ours.
Ibn Ezra explains the above-mentioned class of "the
■ Righteous " as " all that belong to the people of the Lord,"
and says " ^have formed it, namely, t/utt nation."

In the book of Revelation we shall find the precept
" Measure tAe temple of God and the altar," but it is added
" and them that worship therein " ; and no actual " measuring "
(like that in Ezekiel) is recorded then or subsequently. Later
on, However, when the New Jerusalem descends from heaven,
numbers are giyen, twelve thousand furlongs in length,
breadth, and hejght (the city being a cube) and the wall
" one hundred and forty-four cubits, the measure of a man,
that is, of an angel." This mysterious description appears to
refer to the one hundred and forty-four thousand human
beings previously sealed from the twelve tribes of Israel.
Whatever may be the origin of these details, they must not
be regarded as the product of mere Christian fancy, any more
than the "living stones" mentioned in the first epistle of
Peter. Christian influence is at work in the shaping, but the
rough hewing came from Hebrew and Jewish thought, of
which there is a trace in Zechariah.

It is this humanised ideal of a Temple that constitutes
the great-difference between Jesus and Ezekiel, in contrast to
the many parallels between them. Ezekiel not only lays,
stress on the statistical arrangements for a new material
structure, but also, in at least two passages, says that Jehovah
is "there" meaning "in Jerusalem," or "in Palestine," in a
literal and local sense. But the Temple, in the Gospel of
Jesus, is seen to mean men and women, sinners many of

78

A HARMONY OF THE FACTS

them, built into the walls of a new House of God established
- on the Rock of faith. Ezekiel had been called from heaven
" son of man," and it had been given to him to discern the
" appearance of a man " above the throne in heaven ; but it
had not been given to him to pierceive, or at least to teach,
that " the son of man " h«s authority on earth to build up a
City and a Temple to God far surpassing the earthly city he
had conceived, about which he had prophesied that its name
should be "the Lord is there."

Jesus, too, believed that "the Lord" would be "there."
But when He thought of the presence of the Lord, He had in
view the Psalmist's description of Jerusalem " as a city that is
bound neighbourly together in itself, whither the tribes go up,
even the tribes of the Lord, for a testimony unto Israel, to
give thanks unto the name of the Lord." It was the
" neighbourly " temper, the fellowship between man and man,
the dominating spirit of the true "son^of man," that was to
build the sons of man into a " City of the Great King " ; and
it was the contrast between His ideal City and Temple and
the existing city and temple that led Jesus to describe the
Wisdom of God as deserting it, or Himself as deserting it,
until the citizens should repent. Christ's teaching is not to
be understood unless we see Him as one with eyes fixed on
"the city which hath the foundations, whose builder and
maker is God," and that God, a Father. Through the Spirit
of Sonshfa, " the son of man " is to be seen building up the
city of'the' sons of man, " as a city that is builded netghfaourly
together," on the basis of the unity of God, and the unity)
Man in God.

If we regard Christ as keeping in constant view the City
of the New Jerusalem as the City of Unity, we shall better
understand — what may sometimes sound repellent to modem
readers — the extreme bitterness of His invective against the
Pharisees.

79

A HARMONY OF THE FACTS

The Pharisees, who called themselves " Chaberim," that is,
Neighbours, and who contrasted themselves with those whom
they contemptuously called " the People of the Earth," who
were not Neighbours, had probably begun with good
motives ; but they had ended by narrowing the precepts about
neighbourly duty to a select few who prided themselves on
ceremonial cleanness, and despised the rest of the nation, the
majority. Thus they were destroying the unity of the nation.
They had caused it to be no longer " as a city that is bound-
neighbourly in itself." And the more they proselytized in
that spirit, so much the more they swelled the numbers of
their own oligarchy, or clique, to the detriment of the true
brotherhood of Israel. In the eyes of Jesus, some of these
Chaberim would probably seem to be breaking down the
walls of the City of God, or even building up a City of
Satan.

%

%

CHAPTER 11^
THE BUILDER

From the Building we pass to the Builder. No exclusive
stress must be laid on any one of the many Christian
metaphors that describe the Church as Chjist's Bride or
Body, and Christ Himself as the Husband, the Cornerstone,
the Builder, or the Rock. Rather we must endeavour to fix
our thoughts on the radical thought that originated all these
metaphors. The Building appears to be an assembly of
human souls filled with the spirit of beneficent love — love of
the Father in heaven and of the brethren on earth. The
question for us is. Why should the. Builder call himself " son
of man "?

We have connected the title with Ezekiel. But it is not
quite enough to say that Ezekiel, the only prophet that
described the measurement for the new temple, was also the
only prophet that was habitually called " son of man." That,
if given as the sole reason, would suggest that our Lord wsq
acting in an imitative spirit qiiite alien from His nature.
Still, we may regard Jesus as keeping in view the coincidence
between the two mentions of humanity in Ezekiel, when God
first revealed Himself to the prophet as "the appearance of a
man " in heaven, and then addressed the prophet as being, so
to speak, akin to Himself, " son of man " on earth. A second
coincidence, though not of verbal exactness, is subsequently
recorded when Ezekiel says, " A man (vir) stood by me " — the

8i

A HARMONY OF THE FACTS

Supernatural Measurer— " and he said unto me, ' Son of man
(hominis), this is the place of my throne.'"

A more, fundamental reason, however, seems to be implied
in the opening of the Epistle to the Hebrews, which describes
how God having revealed Himself partiajly in the prophets
spoke at last completely in a Son, who, though Man, was
superior to angels. Concerning this Son (says the Epistle)
the Psalmist wrote " What is man that thou art mindful of
him and the son of man that thou visitest him?" It is to
Him, and not to angels, that the world to come is to be
"subjected" as the Psalmist predicts C'thou didst put all
things in subjection under his feet").

After the writer of the Epistle has thus connected the
incarnate Son with " the son of man " in the eighth Psalm, he
goes on to explain the reason for the incarnation thus : " It
became him for whom are all things... in bringing ma.ny sons
unto glory, to make the chief-and- leader of their salvation
perfect through sufferings ; for both he that sanctifieth and
they that are sanctified are all of one ; for which cause he is
not ashamed to call them brethren, saying, I will declare thy
name among my brethren... and again. Behold, I and the
children that God hath given me. Since then the children are
sharers in flesh and blood, he also himself in like manner
partook of the same... for verily not of angels doth he take
hold [to save them] but of the seed of Abraham "—where, by
" the seed of Abraham," the writer seems to mean the elect
among " the nations of the earth," who are to be " blessed " in
Abraham, according to the promise in Genesis.

This pa.ssage seems to go to the root of Christ's doctrine.
It does not say " bringing many to glory." or " bringing many
men to glory," but " bringing many sons to glory " ; for it is as
" sons, " and by a spiritual sonship, that men must be brought
to God. This explains the double fitness of the title " son
of man." It was better than " man," because it implied that
the bearer of the title had i/Uia/duty to perform for "man."

A HARMONY OF THE FACTS

It was better, for the present, than " Son of God," because
" son of man " laid stress on His human co-partnership with
those whom He "was not ashamed to call brethren." Both
He and they weft " all of one," that is, all sons of God. But
the present need was that He should be loved and followed
as the true "son of man," as " chief-and-leader " of the sons
of man, able to build His brethren into the Temple of the
redeemed, who are converted from sons of man into perfected
sons of God.

Such a " chief-and-leader " of the sons of man, not ashamed
to call them brethren, might carry his fellow-soldiers with
him in a way impossible for any angel. Placing himself at
their head, he might make them feel that they are his limbs,
his body. Or he might be said to draw his followers into
himself, or to breathe his spirit into them. Whatever metaphor
we may choose to express the deed, the doer makes them one
with himself. Then, being himself Son of God, and one with
God, such a son of man draws the other sons of man into
unity with his Father and their Father in heaven. Such
appears to be the argument of the writer *of the Epistle to ^he
Hebrews. And it seems to be in conformity with Christ's
doctrine and with our own experience of the links between
human beiitgs. ,It is expressed in the fourth gospel by the
W()rds " I ascend unto my Father and your Father," that is to
say, " unto my Father, whom, through me, you have been led
to recognise as your Father."

The Epistle and the Psalm, taken together, help us to
understand how natural it may have been for Jesus— even
^ after He had been proclaimed " Son of God " from heaven—
to |)ut aside that title when given to Him by others, and to
insist on calling Himself "man" or "son of man." To the
Tempter's " If thou be the Son of God," He is said to have
replied with a text about the duty of " man "—or in Aramaic,
"son of man." In Mark and Luke whet! the "devils" call
Him "the Holy One of God," or "the Son of God," He

83

A HARMONY OF THE FACTS

rebukes them. In the fourth gospel, to Nathanael's " Thou
art the Son of God" He replies that Nathanael shall see
" greater things " than those that have caused this outburst of
confession, "Ye shall see the angels of God ascendi^ng and
descending on the son of man." To be " son of man " as Christ
conceived it, was to be greater than Son of God as Nathanael
conceived it.

There is also another point of view from which we may
find a fitness in the appellation " son of man " for the Builder
of the Temple. For in Hebrew there is a connection, not
found in English, between the thought of building up a
temple and building up a family. Rachel, when childless,
hopes to be " built up " with children. The Lord promises to
" build a sure house " for David, that is, to continue a succession
of his children. The Jews themselves applied to David, as the
youngest son of Jesse, the words of the Psalmist, which Jesus
apparently quotes about Himself, " The stone that the builders
rejected...." Jesus is said by Matthew to have spoken about
building a Church ; and this — if it was to fulfil the prediction
of Isaiah quoted by our Lord Himself as Mark reports it —
was to be a house of prayer " for all the nations," not for Jews
only but for all the sons of man. When therefore He took
on Himself the task of building this New Temple, on a larger
scale and with an ampler purpose than that which David had
in view, it might well follow that, not "son of David," but
"son of Adam or Man," was a more fitting title for the
Builder.

Returning for a moment to the Epistle to the Hebrews,
we may venture to think that perhaps it was hardly adequate
to say of the Son's relation to mankind, as the writer says,
" He was not ashamed to call them brethren." So far as men
contained the image of the Father according to which the
first man, Adam, was made, so far He was bound to "honour
all men " as the Petrine Epistle says.

We have seen above that whereas our English version of
84

A HARMONY I OF THE FACTS

Ezekiel represents the prophet as habitually called "son of
adam " in the sense " son of man," the Aramaic Targum retains
the Hebrew " adam " apparently meaning the Patriarch, so
that the prophet is called, in the Aramaic, " son of Adam."
If Jesus u^ the title in that sense, then He might imply that
He undertook the duty of a descendant towards an ancestor,
as well as towards ideal humanity. He, as the second Adam,
was also son of the first Adam, bearing, and undoing, the
curse that had fallen on His progenitor.

«5

^

CHAPTER III ^

BUILDING ON THE ROCK

Matthew, at the conclusion of the Sermon on the Mount,
and Luke in his parallel version, imply that Jesus bade His
disciples build upon the Rock. According to Matthew, He
also played on the word Rock, Petra, in connection with His
question "Who say men that the son of man is?" Peter,
when the question was put to the disciples, replied " Thou art
the Christ, the Son of the living God." On this Jesus said,
" Blessed art thou, Simon, son of Jonah, for flesh and blood
hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father who is in
heaven... .Thou art petros (i.e. rock-stone) and on thh petra
(rock) will I build my Church."

What is the connection between recognising "the son of
man " and being a " rock " or " rock-stone "? A Jewish tradi-
tion may help us to an answer. It likens the Creator to a
king, desirous of building, but unable to find a firm foundation,
until at last he discovered i petra beneath the swamp; even
so God passed over the preceding generations as unsound till
He saw Abraham, and said, " I have found a petra." The
tradition continues, " Therefore He called Abr^am ' rock,' as
it is said (Is. li. i) ' Look unto the rock whence ye were hewn,"
and He called Israel ' rocks.'"

We shall best understand this use of Rock if we regard
it as applied in the Psalms to God, the Rock of our Salvation,
as being our steadfast standing-place, amid the deep waters

86

A HARMONY OF THE FACTS

and the mire of perplexity and trouble ; or as being our rocky
refuge and fortress protecting us from enemies.

But we must not put entirely aside the use of^he term in
Jewish tradition, to signify the Rock from which Israel was
supplied with water, concerning which Paul says "They drank
of a Spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was
Christ." It occurs frequently in the Song of Moses where the
title is introduced absolutely thus, "The Rock, his work is
perfect."

In this last sentence the word for " petfect" is the same
as that in the precept to Abraham " Walk before me and be
thou perfect"; and the two sentences suggest that, although
" Rock " does not occur in the revelation to Abraham, yet the
above-quoted Jewish tradition— about the "rock" an^ the
"swamp"— was right in connecting the Patriarch with the
thought of the Rock and with the building of the Church of
Israel. Abraham was not himself the Rock of Salvation.
But he was the first (in Hebrew tradition) to receive into
himself that Rock, and to be made one with it. The Rock
was God, revealed as unchangeable Kindness, or, js Scripture
calls it, " kindness and truth," that is, kindness, not only in
word, but also in deeds making words good.

It may seem a strange metaphor — "to receive a Rock."
, But it is impossible to express the versatile Hebrew con-
ceptions of God without strange, and sometimes conflicting,
metaphors. Origen seems to imply the thought of " receiving
the Rock " when he says that " all the imitators of Christ
become a Rock even as He is a Rock," and he speaks of " a
Peter " or " a rock-stone," as a generic term for anyone that
has " made room for the building up of the Church in himself
from the Word." Using another metaphor, the epistle of
Peter speaks of Jesus as " a living stone," to whom we are to
come " as living stones " and to be " built up," as " a spiritual
house." Then, passing into literal statement, the writer^a^ds-
" to be a holy priesthood."

87

A HARMONY OF THE FACTS

g. The same passage implies that these " living stones " are

" babes " feeding on " milk "— " As newborn babes, long for the
spiritual milk...\{ ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious, to
whom coming, a living stone... "\ But this astonishing tran-
sition becomes less astonishing when we remember that the
Stone or Rock gave "water" and "honey" and "oil" to
Israel. And Philo, commenting on this food-producing Rock,
says that it is "the Wisdom of God, who (fem.) is the Nurse
and Foster Mother and Rearer of those who seek after life
incorruptible." Thus the metaphor of the Rock runs into the
metaphor of the Nursing Father.

In Christ's doctrine, we cannot doubt that "the Rock"
implied "steadfastness in beneficence," that is, "truthfulness
in kindness." These two words, "kindness and truth," were
words that would "never pass away," remaining an eternal
revelation of God the All-Sufficing. This revelation had been
given to Abraham, who, as the fourth gospel says, " saw " the
"day" of Christ. It was also impressed on the minds of
many of Abraham's descendants through the faith of their
ancestor, and through that of his lineal and spiritual repre-
sentatives, the heroes of Israel.

But it was intended to be impressed deeper and deeper,
and not merely by a visio^i of " the day " of " the son of man "
.,,, . but by " the son of man " Himself, when recognised, as by Peter,
to be " the Son of the li^g God." This explains why Jesus
closes the Sermon on the Mount with the parable of the
Rock. He had bidden the disciples become "perfect," as
Abraham the faithful had been commanded to become " per-
fect." Now He reminds them of the Rock, who was not only
kind in word but also " true " to His word in deeds, and He
bids them build upon that Rock, whose " work " is " perfect,"
by " doing," as well as " hearing," His commandments.

In the Psalms it is written, " When the earth and all the
inhabitants thereof are dissolved, I have set up the pillars
of it" The " I " is explained by Jewish tradition as being

88

A HARMONY OF THE FACTS

"Israel," setting up the pillars at Sinai when the nation l]ound
itself to observe the Law. The second seiitence of the Sayings
of the Jewish Fathers— one of great antiquity even if not of
n the antiquity usually assigned to it— says that the Universe is

stayed on the Law, the Worship, and the bestowal of Kind-
Jiesses. The doctrine of Jesus is that the Universe is stayed
on the Love of God brought home to the hearts of the sons
of man so as to make them one with God; and His action was
to impart this love to the sons of man by inducing them first
to love and trust and draw near to Him, as "son of man," so
that they might be thereby unconsciously led into the nature
of the Son of God, and be drawn upwards in the glory of the
Son to the glory of the Father.

How then, in brief, can we define the Rock on which
Christ built and bade us build ? Was it really anything more
than a profound belief in the humanity of God ? Yes, because
mere humanity is compatible with a weakness of intellect and
deficiency of power that would be incompatible with what we
feel to be a fit human representation of divine nature.

But what more .' An indefinable "more." We cannot define
any person. Least of all persons can Christ be defined.
What was it in Christ that called forth from Peter his
passionate outburst of conviction ? How far was the apostle
moved by the moral and spiritual beauty of Christ's teaching?
How far by His marvellous acts of faith healing ? How far
by fulfilment of prophecy.' How far by His direct pronounce-
ments of forgiveness of sin.> How far by His direct influence
resulting in a sense of forgiveness .' We cannot say.

/► We must confess that Peter could probably have given no
better account of the reasons that induced him to hail "the
son of man " as " the Son of the living God " than that which
he gives in the fourth gospel, " Thou hast words of eternal
life." We are obliged— as so often— to mix our metaphors,
and to say " It was not really the Rock, but the water from
the spiritual Rock that flowed into the hearts of Peter and

89.

A HARMONY OF THE FACTI

the rest, and forced them by inmost experience to conless that
this 'son of man' gave them a new sense of being sons of God,
so that in Him they felt themselves drawn near to the Father
in heaven." But in saying this, we are passing from the Roclc
of protection to the Rock of nourishment in the Pauline
Epistles. In effect, we are saying, "They drank of a Spiritual
Rock that followed them, and the Rpck was Christ."

%
I

r

90 •

CHAPTER IV

BUILDING WITH AUTUpRITY

We have been led to the conception of Jesus as a Builder
of a Temple on a Rock. The Temple is the spiritual house
of His Father in heaven and consists of human souls. The
Rock may be variously regarded as the Father, or as the Son
through whom the Father is revealed, or as man's faith in the
Father through the Son. And the Son works under the title
of " son of man " on earth to reveal to the sons of man their
Father in heaven. We have now to consider the art of build-
ing, the means by which the Builder proposed to effect the
work, and how this art and these means harmonized with His
self-adopted title, " son of map."

" Builders of Jerusalem " was a name given by Jewish
tradition to the Council of the Sanhedrin. It seems to imply
authority of some kind. Jeremiah receives a commission to
prophesy in the words, " See, I have set thee over the nations
and kingdoms to pluck up and break down... to buUd and to
plant." This, too, implies authority. In considering Jesus as
one " building " with " authority," it may be of use to compare
the Talmudic ideal of the " Builders of Jerusalem " with the
prophetic ideal of " building " as indicated by Jeremiah, and
to compare both with the "building" contemplated by our
Lord.

The former, the Talmudic ideal, is indicated by the Sayings

of the Jewish Fathers. The Book opens as/ollows : " Moses

received [the] Law from Sinai and delivered it to Joshua, and

Joshua to Elders, and Elders to Prophets, and Prophets

A- M- 9> 8

A HARMONY OF THE FACTS

%■

delivered it to the Men of the Great Synagogue. They said
three things (lit. words), ' Be [ye] deliberate in decision,' and
' Raise up (lit. cause to stand) many disciples,' and ' Make a
fence for [.' the] Law.' " Then follows this saying, " Simon the
Righteous was of the remnants of the Great Synagogue. He
used to say, ' On three things (lit. words) the world is made to
stand, on the Law, and on the Service [in the Temple], and
on the bestowal of Kindnesses.' "

In this Talmudic view, the,-iBuilding is first regarded as
the Law, round which a " fence " mu.st be made, so that no
one may come near to the sacred structure, much less violate
it. The second saying points to the structure of " the world "
as based on three pillars, of which the Law is one, but "the'
bestowal of kindnesses" is another.

The third saying indicates both the wrong motive and the
right motive for obedience to the Law. " Antigonus of Soko
received from Simon the Righteous. He used to say, 'Be not
as servants that minister to the Master with a view to receive
recompense ; but be as servants that minister to the Master
without a view to receive recompense ; and let the fear of
Heaven be upon you.' " It may seem somewhat strange that
" fear," not " love," should be enjoined as the motive. . But it
must be remembei-ed that the " fear " of the Lord means such
a reverence for God's goodness as is compatible with perfect .
joy, as in the saying " the fear of the Lord maketh a merry
heart."

The thirteenth of the Sayings of the Fathers brings us to
Hillel and the times of our Lord's childhood, " Hillel j^nd
Shammai received from them [i.e. from their predecessors].
Hillel said, ' Be of the disciples of Aaron ; loving peace and
pursuing peace ; loving [all] creation, and bringing them nigh
to the Law.' "

This phrase " loving all creation," especially when read in
the light of the anecdotes about Hillel, indicates that kind of
feeling which we sometimes r^rd as peculiarly Christian and

91

A HARMONY OF THE KACTS

as absent from all the Pharisees. It goes well with the saying^
assigned' to Simon the Righteous, that the wotid is in part
" based on the bestowal of kindnesses " ; but Hillel has over
Simon this advantage that he takes the word " love," which
belongs to the Great Commandment of the Law, and widens
it so as to include not only '' neighbours," but " creation."

Unhappily this saying of Millel's does not appear to have
been developed or taken up by his successors. Nothing like
it appears in the sequel of the Sayings, where the last saying
in the first book runs thus, "On three things the world stands;
on Judgment, and on Truth, and on Peace." Jesus may well
have known Hillel's saying, and may be tacitly insisting on it
in the Parable of the Good Samaritan ; but the Pharisees
of His day seem to have fallen far below that standard. On
the whole, it is not unfair to the Pharisees after Hillel to say
that they did not, most of them, build up a spiritual life in the
hearts of their pupils. What they built up was a fabric of
rules upon rules, cautions upon cautions, for the most part
aflfecting nothing but external conduct.

'This scribal "building "of the Talmudists, a building up
of rules, contrasts with the alleged prophetic "building" and
"casting down " of nations and kingdoms apparently contem-
plated by Jeremiah. But the .scribal "building" was at all
events a fact. Was the prophetic " building " a fact ? Origen
says, bluntly, No. " Jeremiah," he declares, " did not do these
things." He refers the words to Christ, giving them a spiritual
meaning, that is, building up the Church and casting down
the strongholds of Satan. Jerome dissents. He says that
" many " take Jeremiah's words as uttered in the character of
Christ, but that they must really have been uttered in the
character of Jeremiah, who (he says) elsewhere assumes equal
authority, describing himself as receiving from the Lord a cup,
which he makes the nations to drink. Jerome appears to be
right. It is, of course, Jehovah, not Jeremiah, that casts down
and builds up. But the prophet has, from the first, identified his

93 8-»

A HARMONY OF THE FACTS

own word with the action of the " hand " of the Lord (" Then
the Lord put forth his hand and touched my mouth "). This
extraordinary identification of words with deeds is facilitated
by the double meaning of the Hebrew noun, which signifies
both " word " and " deed."

Passing to our Lord's action, wc find that it implied a
"casting down" as well as a "building up." For a " casting
down of kingdoms" in a spiritual sense, means a "casting
down of the strongholds of Satan," or a shaking o/T of the
yoke of sin. This is implied in a sinner's repent^ce ; and,
according to Mark, Christ's first command was " repent."
" Believe in the gospel " comes second.

The same evangelist's comment on Christ's first teaching
was that "he taught with authority and not as the scribes";
and the comment of the multitude is, "What is this? A
new teaching! With authority he commandeth even the
unclean spirits and they obey him." Jesus Himself, according
to the Synoptists, implies that this casting out of evil spirits
is an attack on the Kingdom of Evil, and that He is the
"stronger" man entering into the house of the "strong" man,
Satan. John describes Him as exclaiming " Nov/ shall the
prince of this world be cast out." According to Luke, when
Jesus heard of the casting out of evil spirits by the Seventy,
He declared that He beheld Satan "fallen from heaven";
and the first lesson of Scripture that He read in the synagogue
contained the words " to set at liberty them that are bruised,"
which implies that captives were to be freed. There was to
be actual " liberty." actual " release," not mere proclamation of
future " release." Before a new Israel could be built up, the
powers of captivity must be cast down by the weapons of
«)Lritual warfare described by Paul as " mighty before God to
-the casting down of strongholds."

It appears, then, that Jeremiah and Jesus both have king-
doms in view; and both are conscious that their words are
God's words and are, in fact, deeds, because the words on

94 .

A HARMONY OF THE FACTS

earth announce decrees (amounting to accomplishments) in
heaven. But Jeremiah mainly contemplates the visible
enemies of Israel, the visible Habylon, and the visible return
from captivity to a visible Jerusalem. Jesus sees all these
things invisibly : — Satan, and the kingdom of Satan, and the
invisible building of a New Jerusalem.

, Another difference, and an immense one, is, that whereas
Jeremiah's " casting down " and " building up " were not to be
accomplished till many years had elapsed, some of the corre-
sponding acts of Jesus were accomplished simultaneously with
the utterance of the words. Jesus spoke, and Satan was cast
out, leaving an insane man henceforth sane, or a daughter of
Abraham, bound by Satan for /eighteen years, henceforth free.
Many, very many, are the acts of miraculous power over
non-human nature in the Old Testament ; but Tew, very few
fndeed, are the miraculous acts of healing, and there is some-
thing appropriate in their falling (in the New Testament) to
the lot of one who called Himself " the son of man," being the
realisation of the " man of sorrows and acquainted with grief."
Concerning Him Isaiah says, " He hath borne our griefs and
carried our sorrows," or as Matthew says, " Himself took our
infirmities and bare our diseases." Isaiah also mysteriously
says that He was to be conspicuous among mankind for
the " marring " of His " visage " : " His visage was so marred .
more than any man, and his form more tlian the' sons of man"
In this respect, then. He was to be the " son of man."

It is nowhere written in the New Testament that " the son
of man has authority to bear griefs and carry sorrows," or to
" bear diseases " ; but it is implied in the above-mentioned
"first lesson" from Isaiah, "the Lord hath anointed me... to
bind up the broken-hearted." What a prophet is " anointed "
to do, he has " authority " to do. And if he receives, in effect,
authority to heal " the broken-hearted " among the sons of
man by "bearing" their ," griefs," it seems fit that He should
emphasize His power of suffering what they suffer, by calling

95 '

A HARMONY OF THE FACTS

Himself one of themselves, " son of man." Moreover, Isaiah
implies that these "sorrows," or "diseases," include "iniquities."
In causing His Servant to suffer, the Lord " hath laid on him
the iniquity of us all."

Thus, from the prophetic mention of "anointing" a prophet
tha^ie may heal " the broken-hearted," we are led to the
Synoptic mention of the "authority" claimed by Jesus — who
might on this occasion call Him.self with special emphasis
" Ike son of man " because He felt Himself pre-eminent among

,the sons of man in the power of sympathizing with repentant
sinners — to heal the soul by " forgiving." In the Acts of the
Apostles, I'etej, when declaring that in every nation he that
feareth God and worketh righteousness is acceptable to Him,
describes "Jesus of Nazareth, how that God ajiointMliMMD with
the Holy Spirit and with power; who werftabout doing |
and healing all that were oppressed by the devil ; for God wa$
with him." It is not clear whether the speaker refers to acts
of physical healing, or acts of spiritual healing, or acts of
exorcism. Probably he includes all these. And the passage
is instructive as suggesting how difficult or impossible it must
have been in some cases to distinguish one from the other.
Peter assumes that all these acts were performed by Jesus
because He was "anointed" for them and "Gpd was with him."
We may add that He was not only "anointed" but also made
"son 6f man" for this purpose. If He had not been "son of
man," but angel or seraph or cherub or a non-human god. He
might, of course, have remitted punishment for sin, but He
could not (so far as we can see) have forgiven sin — in the true
Christian sense of the word "forgive" — because He would not
have known temptation to sin and would not have been able
to " bear" sin.

Going back to Jeremiah and the greater Hebrew prophets,
we perceive in them the rudiments of the authority given to

. the Messiah. Jeremiah had authority, because his mouth had
been touched by " the hi^id " of the Lord, to pronounce the

96

A HARMONY OF THE FACTS

doom and casting down of empires of oppression and the
building up of the oppressed. Isaiah's lips had been touched
with fire, and he had been anointed with the Spirit, that he
might proclaim liberty to them that wer4%ound. The
SpTrit had "entered into" Ezrikiel that he might prophesy the
gift of the new heart and tl^fc new spirit, and might measure
out the {)lan of the Temple for the City that was to be called
" The Lord is there." The last of these three great prophets
..^was expressly called "son of man." But neither to him nor
to any Hebrew prophet was it given to achieve that building
of the sons of man into a City at unity with itself for which
all the higher ^prophecies prepared the way.

On JesusJ the very fulness of the Spirit had descended,
and He had teen proclaimed by a Voice from heaven, not
a prophet, but " my Son." Yet He preferred to call Himself*
" son of man," "and it was on the strength of this that He
claimed " authority " to build up and to cast down, because, as
" son of man," He could enter into the human heart and cast
out Satan from it, and not only pronounce, but also perform,
a forgiveness of sins, building up in the man a temple for God
of which it might be said, " The Lord is there."

97

CHAPTER V

THE SERVANT, RANSOM. AND SACRIFICE

The processes of " casting down " and " building up," when
applied to the building of Christ's Church, have been found
to imply "healing" and ■'forgiveness of sins." "Healing",
and "forgiveness /of sins" imply a "bearing of diseases and
infirmities " on the part of the Healer and the Forgiver. He,
spends Himself, and is spent, for the sake of the suffering and
the sinful. This is a painful service, to be performed for the
sons of man by no one but a son of man capable of human
suffering. In the Synoptists, Jesus says. "The son of man
came, not to be ministered unto but to minister."

But the work of Jesus could not consist simply in driving
out an evil spirit, nor in the mere forgiveness of past sin.
The Double Tradition of Matthew and Luke describes a m^n
out of whom an evil spirit was driven only to make room for
seven evil spirits worse than the first, because the mans heart
was If ft " empty." In the fourth gospel, Jesus says to a man
whom He has healed, "Sin no longer, lest a worse thing befall
thee." There was need not only to cast out an evil spirit but
also to infuse a good one.

98

A HARMONY OF THE FACTS

That Christ did infuse a good and powerful spirit into
many of His disciples will be admitted — in some former
other — by all historical students. Very many may deny that
Jesus uttered the words "Receive ye the Holy Spirit." Some
may assert that " spirit " does not exist and therefore cannot
be " infused," or " inbreathed," or, in any way, imparted. But
even these last will not deny — what the Friar implies in
Shakespeare — that often, when a departed soul has not been
valued "to its worth," the "idea" of the misprized life "creeps
into the sUjdyof imagination " of the survivors, and comes to
them "m<^^Ull of life" than ever, and "apparelled" with
increased power to mould them according to its will.

Call this, if you please, " influence," not " spirit." Still it
will remain a fact Say that Moses " influenced " the seventy
elders, and that Elijah "influenced" Elishau Or deny that
Moses and Elijah existed at all. Still it will remain certain
that Jesus believed in their " influence." Consequently it will
remain probable that He believed Himself to be capable of
exerting a similar " influence" — which amounts to saying, in
Hebrew or Aramaic, that He believed Himself able to impart
a portion of His Spirit to His disciples. The probability is
confirmed by the Transfiguration, even' for those who regard
it as proving no more than the fact that Jesus, in a vision,
perceived the "influence" of Moses and the "influence" of
Elijah. It is also confirmed by Christ's allusions to the
prophecies of Hosea and Isaiah, as well as by the full
expositions of the doctrine of the Spirit in the fourth gospel.
As for "sacrifice," the word is never used by Christ except
■ in the quotation "I will have kindness and not sacrifice." But
it has been pointed out that Christ's repeated prediction that
"the son of man" was to be "delivered up" meant, in fact,
that " the son of man " was to ' make intercession " for the sins
of men in accordance with Isaiah's prophecy of the Suffering
Servant. And in these predictions, the title " son of man," or

99

A HARMONY OK THE FACTS

" son of Adam "—in the sense of a mortal born to suffering-
was appropriate to the humiiiattons and sufferings mentioned
both in the Synoptic and in the prophetic contexts—
particularly the context of Isaiah, which speaks of the sufferer
as destined to be conspicuous among " the sons of man " for
his aspect of humiliation.

That Jesus uttered jome predictions of this kind is not
discredited by John's omission of them. But that the
predictions were not precise^ of the kind given by the
Synopti-sts is indicated by the Synoptic misundersUnding of
"delivered up," and confirmed by the fact that John substitutes
ot/ur predictions about the lifting up of " the son of jnan " '.
like the brazen serpent in the wilderness, and the givihg* (^
the flesh and blood of " the son of man " for the lif* c# tifc
world. TJ

The conclusion that John knew the Synoptic predictions
but regarded them as inadequate expresillkis of Christ's
actual words is further co*nfirmed by John's omission of the
prediction that " the son of man " would be " killed " or (as
Matthew alone has it) " crucified." The evidence points to
the conclusion that Jesus actually predicted neither " killing"
nor "crucifying" but only that He shoufd be " smitten"—
which might or might not mean "smitten to dtatk." Nor does
even this prediction appear to have been made till the execution
of John the Baptist, after which Jesus began to teach that the
same end that had befallen John might also befall Himself.
Luke says that Moses and Elijah (whom Jesus identifies with
the Baptist) conversed with Jesus about His approaching
death. From that time we may suppose that Jesus saw it to
be the Father's will that He, too, should be "smitten;'
according to the prophecy of Zechariah about the " smiting "
of "the shepherd," and that His sheep should be "scattfci«d."

Mark and Matthew agree that Jesus applied to Himself
this prophecy of Zechariah, and it agreed with the word^ in

A HARMONY OF THE FACTS

Isaiah about the Servant " we esteemed him striclten, imitttn
of God, afflicted." Hosea, also, says " He hath smilltn and
he will bind us up; after two days will he cause us to live;
on the third' day he will raise us up and we shall live
before him." But in none of ^hese prophecies does '■ smitten"
necessarily mean "smitten to de^M.'' It might mean ^'smitten
almost to death" or " broughbdown to the verge of death."

It would seem that the Synoptists identified Hosea's pre-
diptions about being "smitten antl raised up on the third day"
with Christ's predictions about being " killed and raised up on
the third day," interpreting "smitten " as "killed" The Hebrew"
"smite" sometimes undeniably has that meaning. They were
therefore within their right in so interpreting it. But this
interpretation makes it difficult to understand Christ's [Jrayer
in Gethsemane^(supposing it to have been correctly reported)
that the cup might " pass " from Him.- The prayer suggests
ari ignorance of the moment and manner in which the Father
would intervene in behalf of His Son, as He was Jeclared in
the Scripture to have intervened for Isaac and for Jonah.
This is quite consistent with an absolute certainty that tht?
. Father would at some time and in some way intervene.

If we suppose that Jesus knew He was to-be " smitten," but
did not know whether He was to be " smitten to death ";, if He
knew that He was to be "raised up in two days," or "on the
third day," but did not know more precisely the length of the
interval indicated by the Hebrew ididm, except that it meant
"a little while" — then, while we can understand, as perfectly
honest, the Synoptic erroneous rendering " shall be killed " for
" shall be smitten," we can also understand why John refused
to repeat — and yet would not obtrusively correct — what he
judged to be am error.

As to " sacrifice," then, the fact appears to be that although
the Synoptists are right from a verbal and Greek point of
view in attributing to Christ a prediction ('; shall be delivered

A HARMONY OF THE FACTS

up") based on the languaije of the Scptuagint, they have not
expressed the spiritual essence of Christ's meaning. This John
has indirectly expressed in other ways, as, for example, when
he describes " the son of man " as giving His flesh and blood
" for the life of the world," and " the Good Shepherd " as
"laying down hi^ life for the sheep."

CHAPTER VI
THE CONQUEROR

The Synoptists all agree in making Christ's predictions of
the Passion terminate with the prediction that He would arise
or be raised up on the third day, or, after three days. But
they do not, in their contexts, indicate what was to happen
next.

Was He to live on, in the flesh and on earth, for some
days, months, or years, and then, after aU, ^o die f Or was
He to live on earth for a time, either^ln the flesh or in
some semblance of the flesh, and ^Im^HHmo lieaven t Or
was He to ascend at once on^^^gfpf^am. or after three
days? Elsewhere the Synopt^^HKHtHW ifien would see
the Messiah " coming " on clouds^P^H|Hevents in some
manner of " coming " connected witn|^Hids. Was that
"coming/' to be "on the third day"? Apparently not. Then,
if not, what was to happen meanwhile .' This the Synoptists
do not say. ■ .

The historical fact appears to be that they did not say,
becays^ Jesus did not say. On the other hand, if Jesus, as
we have reason to believe, followed the prophecies of Isaiah
and Hosea. He implud a great deal more than the Synoptists
either imply or express.

For, if the Synoptic " shall be delivered up " corresponded to
Isaiah's "shall make intercession" then what Jesus actually
said implied something of an intercessional character which

103

A HARMONY OF THE FACTS

1

Would extend to. the context, including the act of "rising
again " or " being raised up." When we speak of Christ's
"intercession," we generally think of Him as being at
right hand of G<xl, or in the immediate presence of God.

Mosea, too, after the words " on the third day he will r j
us up," adds " we shall live ie/ore Aim," that is, in the pres
of God. This, if interpreted materialistically or locally,
be taken to mean before, or near, the throne of God
spiritually, it would mean that Jesus would continue to work
in a new spiritual sphere that might be described as the
immediate presence of God. This would imply, not merely a
renewed life after death, but a higher life — a life that, so far
from being destroyed, had been strengthened by death. Thus
the Messiah would indeed, as Isaiah says, " divide the spoil
with the strong because he poured out his soul unto death."
In a word," He would be Death's Conqueror. He would be,
in truth, " lifted up." "

All this is missing in the Synoptists. If indeed we could
assert that any one of them described an Ascension, we could
call that an attempt to supply the defec*. But it is not
described except inWie Mark-Appendix, and in a corrupt
version of Luke. The latter, when compared with the Acts
and with passages in Mark and Matthew, suggests that the
earliest evangelists had some difficulty in explaining what
immediately followed Christ's Resurrection, and when, and

■ how. He ascended to heaven. The correct text of Luke
probably says no more than that Jesus, after blessing the
disciples, " was separated from them."

This expression naturally caused great difficulty. It was
all the greater because the Greek word, a rare one in the
LXX, would probably be most familiar to Greek-speaking
Christians in a proverb about "separating friends," and the
natural meaning of the word is " make a breach between."
No one can be surprised that so difficult a reading was para''

■phra^, or supplemented, so as to soften away its harshness.

104

A HARMONY OF THE FACTS

Bufthese various corruptions only bring out more clearly the
fact that Luke's gospel described /jot an ascension but a
separation.

John insists, in many passages, on the asce^^n of "the "
3on of man," sometimes as being a " jiftingj^up " in triumph,
" sometimes as being an " ascending ". of the Son to the Father,
or to " the place where he was before." The first Johannine
mention of "the son of man" is connected with angels as-
cending and descending. Later on, comes a statement that
" the son of man " is to be " lifted up " like the brazen serpent.
The last mention of " the son of man " is in connection with a
" lifting up" which is to draw all men to Jesus. In His own
person, Jesus generally speaks (in the fourth gospel) of "going,"
or "going home," to the Father, and He assures the disciples
that when H«yhus goes to the Father He will not leave them
"orphan.s-" but will come to them, and send another self to
them, and abide in them, and they in Him. His message, on
the morning of the Resurrection, sent through Mary to the
disciples, is " I ascerd to my Father and your Father, and my
God and your God."

. The Ascension, according to the fourth gospel, would seem
to have taken place after Christ's appearance to Mary, when
"■ He said, " Touch me not, for I am not yet ascended to the
Father," and before the appearance to Thomas, when He
offered Himself to be touched, and probably also befOr<;^His
appearance to the ten disciples. There is no account of the
Ascension in the fourth gospel as there is in the Acts of the
Apostles; but the result of it is the same as in the Acts, the
gift of the Spirit.

This Johannine Ascension to heaven, followed by descent
to earth with the gift of the Spirit to comfort and strengthen
the sorrowing disciples, constitutes a genuine conquest of
death, quite different from being merely raised from the dead. <
As Jesus Uses the past tense (" Now hath the son of man been
glorified (or, was glorified)") concerning the future Passion, so

A HARMONY OF THE FACTS

He uses the past to indicate the future conquest : " Be of good
cheer,' I have conquered the world." The only other use of
"conquer" in the gospels is in Luke's description of the
" strong, man " conquered by the " stronger " who enters into
his house and takes from him his armour. The " strong man "
is " the world," or " the prince of this world." An application
of this to the Passion might teach that Jesus, entering into the
House of Decfth, and suffering death, thereby conquered and
bound Death, while at the same time, in a sense, " ransoming^
Death's prisoners.

This suggests an answei^to the question, " What intervened
between Christ's resurrection and ascension .'" The first epistle
of Peter appears to reply that He " preached unto the spirits
in prison." Origen challenges " the opinions of most writers "
upon one aspect of this question, and the gospels indicate an
early silence or difference of opinion about it. The fourth
gospel gives us no clue to the Lord's doings in the interval
between His manifestations. Nor does it at this stage mention
" the son of man."

But it suggests a reason why the title is to be henceforth
dropped ; it also, like the epistle to the Hebrews, represents
, Jesus as " not ashamed " to call by the name of " brethren "
those who have believed in Him as "son of man"; lastly, it
takes up the unique cry of Jesus, "my God "—omitted by
Luke, but assigned to Jesus by Mark and Matthew (" My
God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me.'") and represents,
Jesus as using the words in a phrase of reassurance: " Go unto
my brethren and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father and
your Father, and my God and your God."

This says, in effect, " My work, as son of man, is now
completed ; I have brought you into the circle of my brethren,
sons of man like myself. Thereby I have drawn you into the
family of God, where God is revealed as Man, and yet as God",
revealed as Father through the Son, and yet also as the ONE
> GOD who is in us and in whom we are."

lOO '

A HARMONY X)F THE FACTS

The complement of this tradition, in which Jesus appears
to say " I am not God," is the confession of Thomas, " My
Lord, and my God." That these exact words were uttered by
Thomas in the exact circumstances described by the fourth
gospel may not unreasonably be doubted ; and yet a doubter
may reasonably believe that the gospel accurately describes
the way in which " the son of man," ascending to heaven, led
His disciples to say "Whom have we_in heaven but thee?"
and thus constrained them to worship Him as One with the
Father, — and all the more, not the less, because He " counted
it not a prize to be on an equality with God."

i

107 9

CHAPTER VII
X THE JUDGE AND THE PARACLETE

All the evangelists agree that after the Resurrection there
was to be some kind of "coming," or "coming again," both to
the world and to the disciples, on the part of " the son of man "
or " the Son." But the Synoptists lay stress on the public
"coming" of "the son of man" with "power" or with
"clouds," in such a way as to imply the judgment prophesied
by Daniel ; John lays stress on the private return of Jesus to
the disciples individually as well as collectively, no 'longer as
"son of man," but as "another self" called Paraclete, that is,
a " friend called in to aid in an emergency" — which we may
paraphrase as " a friend in need." John does not exclude the
public " coming," nor the Synoptists the private one ; but they
differ in the aspect of the two subjects as well as in the
emphasis laid on them.

John assuredly did not deny that the Lord would come
" with power " — in a s«nse. But he did deny it in the sense in
which " power " is mostly used by men of the world, to denote
mechanical or military or political " power," or brute force.
And so common is this sense that John abstains altogether
from the use of the word. " Power," or " mighty-work," in the
Synoptists, is applied to Christ's miracles. John must have
known this. Nor would he deny that the miracles were
' powers." But Jie felt perhaps that they were signs of some-
io8

A HARMONY OF THE FACTS

thing more than powers signs of something that could not be
exactly defined either as Power or as Wisdom or as Goodness,
being a Personality that was indefinable. At all events he
calls them " signs."

Similarly as to the Lord's " coming in power," He gives us
the essence of the word instead of the word itself. Perhaps
he thought of Zechariah's antithesis, in the building of the

Mew Temple, "Not by. power (R.V. might) but by my

spirit, saith the Lord of hosts." The prophet might have
written, " Not by man's power, but by my ppwer, which is the
power of the spirit" and the Pauline epistles repeatedly exhibit
this thought of the connection between " spirit " and "power."
That the Son will come " with power " is implied by all that
is said in the fourth gospel about the Spirit and about the
" greater works " that the disciples will do with the Spirit's
help.

But what is there, if anything, in the Synoptic gospels,
and what in historical fact, to correspond to the full Johannine
doctrine about the twofold office of the Spirit, whom John
calls the Advocate or Paraclete, who is to be the Teacher of
the di.sciples and the Convincer, or Convictor, of the world ?

In the Synoptists, there appears at first sight to be
nothing, except one brief passage variously reported by the
three. It contains a promise that, when the disciples are
brought'to trial before kings and rulers, they shall be inspired
(or, according to Luke, " taught " what to say) by " the Holy
Spirit," or "the Spirit of" their "Father." ThiS promise is
placed in all the three gospels immediately after a precept
not to be " anxious beforehand " (or " anxious ") what they
should say in their defence when arraigned as Christians. It
therefore Suggests the thought of an Advocate. But two
small points in Mark or Matthew are omitted in the parallel
Luke — 1st, that the divine speaker is (Matthew) ",/'«" the
disciples, 2nd, that He is distinct from them (Mark and
Matthew "not ye").

109 . 9 — 2

<
A HARlAoNY OF THE FACTS

It is true that Luke supplements this in a passage
peculiar to himself contained in his version of the Discourse
on the Last Days : — " Settle it therefore in your minds not to
practise beforehand [your] defending yourselves; for I will give
■^ you a mouth and wisdom that all your adversaries shall not
i)e able to withstand or gainsay." . This partly supplies the
defect. For the " mouth " and the " wisdom " must be in the
disciples. But it is at some sacrifice. For the personality of
the Advocate is gone. The result is that, in one of Luke's
traditions, the Holy Spirit is mentioned as an external teacher;
in the other, as no Spirit at all, nothing but organs or f^fculties
in the disciples.

John intervenes, in language that requires close study to
appreciate its significance. Fir^t, he draws out the meaning
of " not ye" It means, in effect, " not ye but another, a heavenly
Helper*.' This use of "Another" to indicate reverentially a
divine Helper, is very frequent in Epictetus. John uses it
thus here. Then he expresses the thought of Advocate by
using the word Paraclete, which means Advocate and some-
thing more — " a friend called in to aid." Then he describes
the nature and office of the Paraclete, the Spirit of truth,
which is to guide the disciples into truth and also to convict
or convince the world. While thus defirling the office of the
Spirit along with that of the Father and the Son, he meets
the question suggested by Luke's traditions, namely, " Does
Jesus give this ' mouth,' or does the Spirit of the Father
speak in the disciples ? " '^The answer is, in effect, that the
three Persons have all in common, so that what one gives, or.
does, the others give or do. •

Now comes the question whether all this Johannine doctrine
is a mere amplification and exposition of this one Synoptic
passage, or whether it is an attempt to give the substance of
a great mass of doctrine actually uttered by Christ, but
nowhere expressed by Mark except in this somewhat narrow
promise of a special Advocate to Christians on their trial

A HARMONY OF THE FACTS

before rulers. That the latter view is more pi-obable will
appear from the following considerations.

In the prophets, and in the contexts of passages either
quoted by Jesus or likely to be most in His thoughts, God's
Spirit, Breath, or Word, is sometimes described as coming like
a breath of fire from His mouth and bringing destruction to
the evil or purifying^way the evil from the good. Instead of
a flame, the metaphor of a dart, arrow, or sword, is some-
times employed, called in the Psalms a " two-edged " sword,
in such a way as to suggest the " two-edged sword " of the
Holy Spirit. This sword is mentioned in the Book of
Revelation and the Epistle to the Hebrews, where apparently
the epithet " two-edged " alludes to the Spirit's twofold work,
confirming the good in goodness, while convicting the bad of
badness that they may repent and be purified.

It will be observed that in Isaiah, although the Servant of
the Lord says " He hath made my mouth like a sharp sword,"
yet afterwards, when the Lord Himself is described as coming.
His "breastplate" is mentioned, and His "helmet," but no
" sword." The reason seems to be that (as in the New
Testament) " the sword " is that of the " Spirit," or " Breath,"
and Isaiah expresses this in the words " he shall come as
a rushing stream, which tlu breath of the Lord driveth."

These identifications of " Spirit " with " fire " and with
" sword " are of importance in comparing John's very various
and copious exfKJsitions of the nature and oflfice of the
Spirit, with the comparative silence of Matthew and Luke—
who, however, indicate allusion to the subject in the Baptist's
doctrine about baptism with the Holy Spirit " and with fire,"
and in their tradition that Jesus said that He had not come
to send peace upon the earth but " a sword," where Luke has
" division," and where Luke's context adds " I have come to
send fire upon the earth."

The historical fact appears to be that Jesus actually used
these Hebrew metaphors about the twofold action of the

A HARMONY OF THE FACTS/

Holy Spirit, and that they were disused ur ipany churches
owing to their ambiguity. John nowher^peaks of " fire" in
connection with the mention (or the thought) of " spirit," nor
does he ever mention " sword " in a metaphorical sense. But
he compensates for this by enlarging on the twofold office
of the Spirit which appears to correspond in some respects
with Philo's description of "the flaming sword" of the Logos,
chastening Jn prosperity but encouraging in adversity, and
also with Philo's description of the conscience as Convictor.

Christ's doctrine about not sending peace but a sword
"on the earth" (Luke "in the earth") should probably be
studied in the light of the Pauline precept " mortify therefore
your members that are on the earth" that is, " kill the flesh so
far as it rebels against Ihe Spirit." This is Origen's view, and
it throws light on the Synoptic precept about "losing" "one's
own soul," or " life," and on Luke's precept to " hate one's
own soul," to which John adds "in this world." All these
are ramifications of the radical doctrine that Christ's " peace"
is not the peace of this world : " My peace I give unto you,
not as the world giveth give I unto you." He does not desire
to give us any peace except that which is obtained by a
victory of the sword of the Spirit over the flesh.

These and other facts lead to the conclusion that Jesus
taught doctrine about the Holy Spirit much more frequently
than might be inferred from the Synoptists, but that He
expressed His thought with great variety of phrase. Some-
times He may have indicated the Spirit by "the Son of Man,"
or by " the Son," meaning the Spirit of Sonship toward God,
or the Spirit of humanity judging the evil and guiding the
good.

Take, for example, the startling saying of Jesus (in the
form reported by Matthew and Luke as distinct from Mark)
in the trial before the Sanhedrin, that " lunceforth " they
should sec " the son of man seated at the right hand of the
power," or " seated at the right hand of the power of God."

A HARMONY OF THE FACTS
c

It seems to imply that they had converted a gentle Messiah
who would gladly have befriended them, into a justly stem
'Messiah, expectant at the right hand of God, before whom
they must " henceforth " stand as "enemies." At the very
moment when they .were sentencing " the son of man " to
death on earth, " the son of man " was actually to be seen— if
only they had eyes to see— seated at the right hand of God,
waiting till His "enemies" should be made His "footstool."

The conception of " the son of man " as henceforth to be
replaced by another self, a Spirit of truth, who will convict
the world of judgment, agrees with another Johannine
passage where Jesus says, " If any man shall hear my words
and not keep [them], I (emph.) judge him not, for I came not
to judge the world but to save the world. He that continueth
rejecting me and not receiving my words, hath him that
judgeth him. Tlu word that I spake~\.\ia.\. shall judge him in
the last day." The meaning seems to be that thoie who.
under cover of obedience to the letter of a written Law,
persistently reject the claims of humanity and the considera-
tion of human motives, convert the revelation of the humane
God as the all-sufficing Spirit— the Spirit that imparts from
itself subsistence for all the myriads of humanity according
to their several needs, the Spirit that is ever present and yet
ever "coming'," ever changing and yet ever the same— into
a past unalterable " word " (" the word that I spake "). This
will judge them, like the letter of that Law which they, the
Law-worshippers themselves,' have converted into an idol.

What then is the fact— so far as we can infer it— about
Christ's doctrine of the Spirit, and what is the explanation of
the Synoptic and|he Johannine treatment of it >
'^ The fqct appears to be that Christ's doctrine, in essence,
was whoUy alibut the Spirit. From the beginning. He taught
nothing that was not a teaching, and did nothing that was
not a doing, in the sphere (so to speak) of the Spirit. How
could it be otherwise .' John the Baptist had predicted that

"3

{i HARMONY OF THE FACTS

/

Jesus would " baptize with the Spirit." Jesus assumed this.
Matthew represents Jesus as also assuming that, whenever
He cast out a devil, He cast it out " with the Spirit of God "
— "If I wif/i tite Spirit of Corf cast out devils." Even those
who deny that Jesus did this must believe that Jesus believed
that He did it. , '

But the fact also appears to be that' Jesus very rarely
mentioned the 'Mord " Spirit." In the passage, for example,
just quoted, the parallel Luke, instead oAwith the Spirit of
God," has, " wit/i j/te finger gf God." And as to baptizing
with the Spirit, which (according to the Baptist) was to be
the work of Christ's life, it is impossible to find in the
Synopti-sts (apart from the Baptist's prediction) a single
passage that .contains the ^rtc\se phrase "baptize with the
Spirit." The thought indeed is expressed, but very dii^er-
gently, and often obscurely, in doctrine about " turning and
becoming as little children," or "receiving the kingdom of
God as little ^children " — or perhaps, sometimes, " receiving a
little child " in the name of Christ. Apart from' the words
recently under consideration, where the Spirif was regarded
as an Advocate, the only passage in which Mark mentions the
Holy Spirit'' in Christ's doctrine is one in connection with
exorcism, where the sin against "the Holy Spirit" is distin-
guished from sin against " the Son of Man."

Our conclusion is that the omissions and obscurities in
Marlt's gospel, on the subject of the Spirit, having been only
partially and inadequately remedied by isolated metaphorical
traditions in Mjtthew and Luke, induced John to try to set ,
forth a dear's and systematic account of the thought that
consistently underlay our Lord's work of " baptizing with the
Spirit." The exposition of this thought, beginning from the ,
Dialogue with Nicodemus— who is a type of the mind that
materialises metaphor — extends through the Dialogue with
the Samaritan woman, and is traceable in the Dialogue on the
Manna and in the public " cry " of Jesus about the Holy

A HARMONY OF THE FACTS

Spirit which as yet "was not." It finds its climax in the
promise of the gift of the. Paraclete, and in the fulfilment of
the promise after Christ's Resurrection. In all this doctrine
there are probably not six consecutive words that actually
issued from Christ's lips. And yet it contains much more of
Christ's thought than is to be found by modern readers in the '
approximation to Christ's actual words that has been
probably preserved in Luke's strange phrase " I will give you
a mouth and wisdom!'

"5

CHAPTER VIII
THE EXORCiST as DESCRIBED BY MARK

The passages just quoted about " the Spirit "—apparently
called by Luke " a mouth and wisdom " but by John " Para-
clete" or "Spirit of truth" who is to "guide" the "disciples
"mto all the truth "—afford a convenient occasion for a
caution against underestimating the fourth gospel because, as
some might say, it h^s" a spiritual bias."

The charge is trueVnd its truth does, it must be confessed,
diminish the value of that gospel. But, as sometimes stated,'
it is allowed to diminish the value of the fourth gospel too much
as compared with the three. For it is also true to say that
Mark (with Matthew and Luke so far as they follow Mark)?
has " a non-spiritual bias." John while endeavouring to bend
the tradition back to the truth, sometimes bends it too far
back ; but he bends it in the right direction.

To justify this charge against Mark would be an easy
task. Mark begins, it is true, by saying, as all the evangelists
do, that the Spirit descended on Jesus. He also adds that
whereas the Baptist baptized w^J^ water, Jesus (according to
the Baptist's prediction) was to baptize with the Holy Spirit.-*
But there he practically stops, so far as concerns doctrine
about the Spirit. Mark's omissions of this subject are all the
more remarkable because of his insertions of other subjects.
In contrast with this insignificant place assigned to doctrine

ii6

A HARMONY OF THE FACTS

about the Spirit, how large and disproportionate a space is
given to narratives, or discourses, about casting out unclean
, spirits! No doutt this disproportion represented a popular
view, which regarded Jesus mainly as an exorcist. But was
it the true view ? Must it' not be confessed by all that Jesus
—whether Messiah or Dreamer— lived, taught, worked, and
died, in the belief that He possessed the Spirit in a peculiar
degree, or form, distinguishing Him from John the Baptist,
and from preceding Hebrew prophets?

Again, another fact, not disputed by serious students of
history, consists of Christ's peculiar influence over disciples,
and over sorne that were not disciples— what some would call
in these days a magnetic power— not that the name would
explain anything — sometimes suddenly exerted, testifying to
■ a strong personality. One might guess this, perhaps, from
Mark's account of the call of Peter, in obedience to the
summons, " Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men."
But the sequel in Mark weakens the impression that might
suggest such a guess. For the crowds are subsequently
represented as marvelling at Christ's "authority" in such
close connestion with exorcism as to-suggest that they marvel
simply because " he commandetj} even the unclean spirits and
they obey him " ; and there is no word from Mark to correct,
or to suggest a correction of, the popular view.' Nor after-
wards does Mark give us more than a few faint suggestions of
Christ's personal power.

To shew that Jesus had power over the spirits of maniacs
and lunatics, Mark affords reiterated evidence. That He had
power over the spirit of the storm to which He exclaimed
"Be silent! Be thou muzzled!," Mark's narrative— if we could \
accept it as prose history and not as poetic legend reduced to
prose— would also prove. But, that Jesus had a unique pow«r
of impressing His personality on others besides lunatics, and,
through them, on a wider circle— on this fact Mark lays com-
paratively little stress. And yet on this fact Christianity, so

"7

A HARMONY OF THE FACTS

far as it has been a success, has been always based, and by
this fact the history of the world has been stupendously —
"guided," as Christians would say; or "modified," as non-
Christians would confess.

J

ii8

CHAPTER IX

THE PERSON AND THE SPIRIT AS DESCRIBED
BY JOHN

As regards both these fundamental facts, relating to the
Person and the Spirit, John gives us an account by far superior
to that of Mark, and, in the opinion of the present writer,
superior to that of any of the Synoptists, in its power to
explain the successes and the failures of Christianity, in
accordance with moral and historical experience.

John alone strikes the right note — right psychologically
at all events, whether he be right or not in his details— when
he describes the first two disciples as being converted to Jesus,
before a single sign or miracle had been wrought, because
" they came and saw where he abode, and abode with him
that day.'" Or rather he does not describe their conversion ;
he assumes it. And then he hastens on to describe how
Andrew "first" brought his brother to Jesus, and Jesus
" looked intently " on him, and said, in effect, that at present
Andrew's brother was only " Simon son of John," according
to the flesh, but that a tls^e would come when he should Be
" Cephas," ;' Peter," Stone.^

Then, while stjil no miracle has been wrought, Philip is
commanded to ^follow" Him. It is not said that Philip
follows. That, again, is assumed. But it is said that Philip
at once tries to convert ' Nathanael to " Jesus of Nazareth,
Joseph's son."

.. ■ 119

A HARMONY OF THE FACTS

Nathanael objects— "Nazareth" (not "Joseph's son") being
a stumbling-block to him. Thereupon, to meet this objection
against Christ's claims — the first objection raised against them
in the history of the Christian Church, or rather, an objection
raised not against Christ's claims, but against the claims made
for Christ by a zealous disciple and based on Moses and the
Prophets — there is wrought for Nathanael a nondescript
wonder: "When thou wast under the fig-tree," says Jesus,
" I saw thee."

The evangelist does not irfclude this wonder in his seven
"signs" or "miracles," and he represents Jesus as apparently
considering it a small thing relatively to the "greater things"
that Nathanael was afterwards to see. Supposing it to be
historically true, some would explain it as a specimen of
" thought-reading," not so remarkable as hundreds of instances
well attested in our days. But on reflection we must perceive
that it is not the mere 'coincidence of the seer's insight with
Nathanael's thought that takes Nathanael by storm ; it is (in
part at least) the kind vf thought. If, for example, Nathanael
"under the fig-tree" had been looking up and numbering his
figs, and if Jesus had mentioned to him their precise number,
we feel sure that such a coincidence as that would not have
been represented (in such a work as the fourth gospel) as
eliciting the confession, " Thou art the Son of God."

What it was that Nathanael was revolving in Ijis mind we
are not told. But reasons might be given for thinking that he
is to be regarded as passing through some temptation con-
nected with the mysteries of Providence, such as the Jews
believed to be suggested in that vision of Ezekiel about the
Beasts and the Man which they called the Chariot-. If so,
Jesus may be supposed to have perceived by divine' intuition
the nature of Nathanael's trial, and to have uttered the words
" I saw thee," with such a sympathetic force as to suggest
" My heart and soul were-with thee to give thdfe strength." In
that case it becomes i;nuch easier to understand Nathanael's

A HARMONY 01' THE FACTS

cry " Thou art the Son of God " — addressed to Jesus, not as a
mere Seer ot things hidden, but as a divine Helper.

According to this view, Jesus penetrated Nathanael's heart
and strengthened it against temptation because He Himself
was human, a " son of man," and knew what it was to be
tempted, while also knowing that "the son of man" lives on
everything that comes forth from the Father, and that angels
of God ascend and descend upon humanity when the human
spirit is in unity with God.

It is not necessary to urge the hypothesis that Jesus on
this occasion had in view the vision of Ezekiel and the human
controlling Power. Even without that, the context indicates
that the evangelist wishes to turn our thoughts from con-
ventionaUnotions about God to spiritual thoughts about Man,
and to shew us that divine Man, so to speak, is greater than
human God.

Philip has appealed to personal experience, " Come and
see." NathanacI comes, sees, and is conquered — conquered, it
would seem, not by the evidence of thought-reading alone, but
by the strong power of the spirit of man on man, or, as it
might be expressed in Aramaic, of " son of man " on " .son of
man." At all events, whereas Nathanael called his-new Ma.ster
Son of God, the Master, in rcpl/, bade him expect to .see
higher revelations of divine truth than those which had called
forth from him the confession " Thou art the Son of God," if
only his eyes could discern " the heaven opened " and " the
angels of God ascending and descending on tlie son of man"

With the same lone of recognition of the force of the
personality and spirit of Jesus, the fourth gospel, later on,
describes even the servants of the chief priests as saying to
their masters " Never man so spake." And the reason given
by Peter for the impossibility of his departure from Jesus
is given in the exclamation "Lord, to whom shall we go?
Thou hast words of eternal life."

No doubt the Synoptists too, on one occasion, represent

f

131

A HARMONY OF THE FACTS

Jesus as attaching infinite importance to His 6wn words: —
" Heaven and earth shall pass away but my words shall surely
not pass away." Nothing could well be stronger than this.
But the context gives the impression that the " words " do not
deal generally with eternal principles of right and wrong, but
contain a prediction relating to a special event, namely, the
destruction of Jerusalem, without any such general reference.
Taken thus, as referring to Jerusalem, this strong saying would
mean no more than that the prediction would " surely not pass
away" unfulfilled.

The fourth gospel is not liable to such a misinterpretation
of what Jesus said about His " words." It gives what appears
to be historically a more accurate impression, namely, that
whenever Jesus spoke thus about them. He meant " words of
eternal life," words creating a new spiritual sfandard ; words
that might raise up those who were willing to be helped by
them, but cast down those who were unwillmg*; words " for
the fall and rising again of many," not " inHsrael " alone but
in the whole of mankind ; such words as Mive had authority
to move empires because they have had Authority to move
the mind of man, coming from "the son [of man."

This Johannine recognition of the poXer of Person and
Spirit, as well as of Word, is in accordance with Hebrew
theology, which speaks of God as revealiite Himself through
men to men as " the God of Abraham andl Isaac and Jacob,"
and which subsequently describes Moses Jfe transmitting his
spirit to the elders, and Elijah as assenting (on certain con-
ditions) to the petition of Elisha that a twofold portion of the '
prophetic spirit of the former should fall on the latter. It is
possible to accept the essence of the old Hebrew doctrine as
containing truth exemplified daily before our eyes, in the
influence exerted by good men and good women, without
accepting as literal alt the metaphorical or materialistic ex-
pressions in which the truth has been enfolded in the Hebrew
Scriptures. "

2«el

A HARMONY OF THE FACTS

This doctrine of the power of Person and Spirit underlies
both the beginning and the end of the fourth gospel. There
is, so to speak, a personal relation in the divine Family above,
corresponding to a personal relation in a human family that
is to be established by Jesus below. In the Prologue, the
Logos above is said to have been in the beginning " towards "
God, an expression made more definite afterwards as " the
only begotten Son who is in (lit. to) the bosom of the Father."
Then the gospel proceeds to reveal this personality through
the pen of an unnamed evangeli.st whorn we ultimately find to
be a disciple specially loved by Jesus, and described as " lying
in the bosom of Jesus." This disciple — it is mysteriously
hinted — may possibly " tarry " till the Lord shall come, as
though to represent Him on earth. And the book concludes
with a protest, as it were, against books, declaring that the
world could not find room for the books that might be con-
tinually written to set forth the acts of the Person whom this
very book has been attempting to describe.

Here for the first time we find a writer of a life of Christ
recognising that the Spirit of the life is beyond the power of
any writing to express. It is what Jesus calls, in the Johannine
Revelation, "a 'new name. ..which no one knoweth but he that
receiveth it"; or it is "the name of my God^and the name of
the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which cometh down
out of heaven from my God, and mine own new name " ; or,
as the Seer himself says concerning the Word of God, it is " a
name written which no one knoweth but he himself."

In these passages, the Johannine Revelation appears to
be attempting to convey a conception of the many-sided
nature of the Word, the Son — who is also the New Jerusalem,
and whose " body," as the gospel says, is the Temple — and at
the same time to express that only the Son Himself, and
those who are in the Son, know this " new name." For the
Name is not a collection of syllables used as an amulet or
charm. It implies a vital Thought of the nature of a Person

A. M. .123 lO

A HARMONY OF THE FACTS

' exerting influence. That Person is the Son, arid the Name

is, not the letters that make up the.word "son," but the feeling
or spirit of sonship. The Son is only to be known in what
we may personify as the Spirit of Sonship, and, as Matthew
and Luke,say, " no one knoweth the Father but the Son and
he to wh6m the Son willeth to reveal him."

Why does Jphn represent Jesus as saying, directly, " I am
the way," " I am the light of the world," " I am the truth,"
" I am the life," and so on, but never as saying, directly,
" I am the Son "> '

Perhaps the reason is that all the foregoing self-apjiella-
' tions were merely titles, whereas "the Son " was His "proper
jf natfft." Now we learn nothing from hearing " a proper name "

_,,,. » unless we know something about the person to whom the
,- I \ w name |^long«. And the evangelist's conviction was that the
reason *Vhy Poter and his companions were led into the new
Spirit of Sonship and became partakers of the new Name,
was, that thjiy had taken the , person, the man, Jesus of
Nazarptflf into their hearts, and felt Him to be enthroned
there as the reprpsentative, and Son, of God. If this was
indeed the view of the evangelist, it must be admitted to be
nearer to historical fact than anything that we can find clearly
de.scribed in the earliest of the Synoptic gospels. For thus it
was that^e Cliurch Was founded in Galilee. And thus also,
,by personal channels-'-the flame of»tne human and humanis-
ing Spirit passing from soul to soul — there has come down to
our days, along with a great mass of nominal or corrupt
ChHsttanity, a true and lineal offspring of the Church
established on the Rock, that is, on the practical recognition
of God as our Father, loving us with that kind of love which
was first brought into the world by " the son of man."

#:

"4

■ /

CHAPTER X

POSTSCRIPT ON THE LIMITS OF THIS
INVESTIGATION

The inferences drawn from the evidence of which a
summary has been' given in Part I of this work have been
limited— or at least it has been the author's desire to limit
them— to what might be reasonably inferred as historical
facts bearing on Christ's doctrine of " the s6n of man " and
on^kindred subjects, such as " son," " man," "God," "man in
the image of God," " man becoming perfect like God, ' " man
becoming the child of God," " God the Nursing Father and
Redeemer," " man^^the littJe -one or babe," " God giving to
man," and "man receiving from God."

Reviewing all the documentary data, and comparing the
inferences frdm them with *rhat might Ije inferred a priori
from the antecedents and environment of a Jewish Messiah
^ in the first century, we have concluded that Jesus, as a fact,
possessed a power of communicating to men, on certain
occasions and conditions, a spiritual sense of relief from
sin, and a bodily relief from disease, which many would call a
divine power, and which He Himself regarded as an
"authority" corresponding to His visions or thoughts about
God and man. • '

These " visions or thoughts about God and man " we have
endeavoured to trace back to corresponding though but

"5 10—2 '

A HARMONY OF THE FACTS

rudimentary visions or thoughts recorded in the Old Testa-
ment. Our conclusion has been that Jesus saw what the
greatest of the ancient prophets saw, only more amply,
clearly, and continuously. Ezekiel now and then had
glimpses — and, in an inferior sphere, the writer whom we call
Daniel had an imitative glimpse — of One like a man, or son
of mati, near the throne in heaven ; Jesus had a perpetual
vision of such a son of man in heaven corresponding to another
son of man on earth — another, yet the same in God's
intention — struggling upwards through imperfection and
corruption to the " glory above the heaven.s." To be exalted
to this glory the human being was destined by tKe will of the
Father when the time should come for all things non-human
and inhuman to be subjected to humanity.

" But all this," it may be replied, "is vision, not fact. The
important point is, not what Jesus thought, or saw in vision,
but whether what he, thought was true, and whether what he
saw in vision was real. IVe all know w/tat he thought."

This bofiV is written in the conviction, that we do not all
know what He thought; that we are very far from knowing it ;
that God has provided us with means for knowing it iBter,
as the generations advance ; and that, if we could kn<^ it
better, we should be drawn more powerfully towards it.

To attempt to prove the truth of what He thought (so far
as we imagine that we have already ascertained the nature of
what He thought) would require a different treatise on
different lines. It would be necessary to shew the harmony
of what we suppose Jesus to have thgught with the facts of
the external world, and with the facts of our inner bemg.
Wc should aim at shewing that Christ's doctrine, or our
conception of Christ's doctrine, affords us insight into the
problems of existence, or, at all events, gives us will, wisdom.

' "This book," here and in the following sentences, refers to the larger
work from which Part 1 1 of the present volume is extracted.

126 -

A HARMONY OF THE FACTS

and power, to grapple with these problems, and to live our
best life and to die our best death. That woufd be proof of
a kind, and of an evidential kind, though not based on
unmixed logic.

But that is not the object of this book. If it were, it
would be otherwi.se entitled. It might be called the Ascent of
Worship through Illusion to the Truth, and in such a work it
would be in place to attempt to shew that ail things past,
present, and future, are most reasonably as well as most
helpfully explained by the hypothesis of a Light shining in
Darkness aird sphered in clouds of Illusion, which Light is
the Eternal Word of God, whom we worship in Christ, and .
hope to worship better, when clouds and illusions gradually
pass away.

The present treatise is, in some respects, more humble in
its object. It takes merely one of the many illusions which
surround upward-climbing Christian humanity, and en-
deavours to dispel it — the illusion that " We all know what
Christ thought."

Not indeed that the author attempts, or ever dreamed of
attempting, to set forth all that Christ thought, or even all
that He thought about the special subject dealt with in these
pages. But, taking up one phrase of Christ's doctrine, the ,
book aims at shewing, from His use of it, that He had views,
and corresponding influences or powers, simpler and yet
deeper, more natural and yet more spiritual, than most
students of Christ's history have hitherto supposed.

^Those who are not Christians may call Christ's, views
dreams. Some, while admitting that He had strange in-
fluences and powers, may assert that such influences and
powers prove nothing, and that, being based on dreams, they
are destined in the end to vanish like dreams. But a step
forward^-toward^ a reasogable aspiration that may engender
a reasonable hope and ultimately a reasonable faith-^will
have been .taken even by Agnostics raising these objections,

12,7

A HARMONY OF THE FACTS

if, at the very moment when they raise them, they cannot
help confessing, " And yet these dreams have worked great
things that were not dreamy. We call St Paul's 'constraining
love of Christ' a dream, but we do not call St Paul's
Cathedral a dream. Are the Christian -Churcjjes and nations
less solid historical realities than their cathedrals? And after
all, may it not be true that the only way for mankind out of
' its present social and national perils, the only security for the
establishment of the kingdom of the Man over the Beast, is to
be found in the recognition— not half-hearted as at present, but
full, spontaneous, and natural— of the reality of some such
dreams as \yere dreamed by the great aud good and marvel-
lous Galilaean? No one can prove their reality. But theh rfo
one— ih the strict lexical sense of the term 'prove,' and
without some vast unprove4 and unprovable assumption-
can prove any reality. If there is any reality, may it not
well be this }"

Some Christian critics may raise an a priori objection of
an opposite-kind. To them " what Christ tliought," so far as
it can ever be ascertained, may seem to have been so
accurately ascertained by ancient authority, and so definitely
fixeld, that nothing of importance can ever be added to, or
taken from, what is taught as Christ's doctrine by the
Church.

Without entering into the thorny questions at once
suggested by "the Church," and by the many meanings of.
which the term is'susceptible, this a priori objection may be
met by an d priori answer, namely, that, in these (lays ftf
marvellous scientific revelation and historical revelation, it
seems as it were but a fair and reasonable expectation, a part
of the symmetrical and harmonious development of things,
that there should be some proportionate revelation of the
divine guidance in human evolution. /
. ^£ience rey,eals to us Man in the making, developed from
the Beast; now advancing in the scale of humanity, now

I28> ',

A HARMONY OF THE FACTS

dcReneratinK, now disappearitiR, but on the whole advancing.
But, while the good in Man advances, the evil advances too
The Beast is perceived in the back-ground ever* threatening
to return and lord it over the Man— as in prehistoric times,
but with the Beasr more powerful than before, because now,
Man, if he succumbs, will subject himself to the .evil after
having known the good, so that henceforth, if he serves, he
will serve with the consciousness of a retributive feebleness
and a merited degradation, obeying that which he knows he
ought to command.

To avert this im|)ending horror, "puVe" science can do
nothing by what are commonly called. In a restricted sense,
scientific discoveries. What is it to us that our analysis of an
. atom appears to be on the point of revealing something like
a solar .system, if the solar .system may contain an inner
revelation of a system of conflict, with ultimate dissolution as"
• its goal? But "mixed" .science (if we may borrow an
epithet .from the mathematicians) may be of great use.
" Mixed " science may help us, through the scientific study of
fiuman history and the scientific study of the documents that
record it, to infer the reasonableness of a faith that the Being
whom in our English Prayer Book we mostly adore under
the title of "Almighty"— a title never applied to God by
Jesus— may, like the atom, "be of a much less sharply
definable, but much more vastly contprehensive and many-
sided nature than we had hitherto supposed. Such science
may also teach us something more of the marvellous laws of
human thought and of the influence of what we call man's
spirit upon the spirits of his brother men.

Then we may understand that God is not merely the
, I AM but the WILL BE and the WAS ; that, in order to be
the sam^e in this ubiquitously and constantly moving Universe,
He Himself is ^'^*'=')^'ldie'ion or rather motion is always in
Hfm ; that He is ^fffPlf^'Father, but also, as the' Hebrew
theology taught, Nfursin^ Father ; that He may be best

A HARMONY OF THE FACTS

thought of as at once Father and Mother revealed through
the Son ; that all the actions and attributes of God are best
thought of by us as 'having "impressed on them (to uje
Ezekiel's phrase) " the likeness of a man " ; that of all these
divine attributes the one at once most human and most
divine is Love ; that, along with Love, in this present
chequered, imperfect, and sinful phast; of the evolving world,
there must needs go pity and even pain — pain in the heart of
God for the sins of His children ; and that an essential part
of the mission of the Son of Man was to constrain us to
believe in this otherwise incredible pity and pain of God,
that through it we might draw nearer to the apprehension of
His eternal Love,

130

^

APPENDIX

APPENDIX

PASSAGES-IN THE GOSPELS ILLUSTRATING THE
i/'MEANIN(;'oF "THE SON OF MAN"

The passages are given according to the text' of the
Revised Version (even where that text is not followed in the
preceding pages). But " the son of man " is printed in italics
and without capitals. The object of this is to call the reader's
attention to the term, while at the same time helping him to
keep an open mind as to its meaning, by not printing it
^ " Son of man " or " Son of Man." The passages are arranged
thus : —

I. Those common to tht three gospels (there being none
common to four) of Mark, Matthew, and Lohe. . Mark is
placed to the left, as being the earliest of the three, and
Mark's order is followed.

These include all the instances where Mark mentions
" the sort of man " and some where he (or the parallel Matthew
or Luke) illustrates without mentioning it.

These are frequently described as belonging to "the Triple
Tradition."

II. Those common to the two gospels of Matthew and
Luke. Matthew is placed to the left as being the earlier of
the two; but Luke's order is followed because he professed to

' Slight variations may occasionally occur, e.g. in the first quotation given
below, "But, that" (for "But thai") for the sake of clearness. •

'3J

APPENDIX

write (Lk. i. 3) "in [chronological] order," whereas Matthew
groups accortling to subject matter, is in the Sermon on the
Mount. - ' ^

These are frequently described as belonging to " the
Doubje Tradition."

There is no collection of parallel passages peculiar to
Mark and Matthew or to Mark and Luke important enough
to be recognized as a separate Double Tradition. Such as
there are, will be given in the Triple Tradition.

III. Passages peculiar to Matthew.

IV. Passages peculiar to Luke.

V. Passages peculiar to John. )ohn has no passages in
common with any of the three earlier evangelists.

'34

APPENDIX

PART I

THE TRIFLE TRAUITION OK MARK, MATTHEW,
AND LUKE

V. 14

Mk ii. 10 Mt. ix. 6 Lk.

But, that ye may lltit, that ye may But, that ye may

know that the son know that t/u sSn know that //le son

of man hath power of man hath power of man hath power

{marg. authority) on- (marg. authority) on {marg. authority) on

Karthtoforgivesins... earthioforgivejins... earthtofotgivesins....

Mk ii. 27—8
And he said unto
them. The sabbath
«(as made for man,
and not man for the
sabbath: so that Me
son of man* is lord
even of the sabbath.

Mk iii. 28—9
^ Verily Psay unto
'you, All their sins
shall be forgiven unto
tht sons of men ', and
their blasphemies
wherewith soever they
shall blaspheme: but
whosoever shall blas-
pheme against the
Holy Spirit hath
never forgiveness, but

Mt. xii. 7—8
Hut if ye had
known what this
meaneth, I desire
mercy, and not sacri-
fice, )e would not
have con<lenmed the
guiltlessr For the
son of man is lord of
the sabbath.

Mt. xii. 31 — 1
Therefore I say
unto you, Every sin
and blasphemy \hall
be forgiven unto men
(someone. a»M.,unto
you men) ; but the
blasphemy against
the Spirit shall not
be forgiven. And
whosoever shall speak
a word against the

Lk. vi. s
And he said unto
them. The son of man
is lord of the sabbath.

Lk. xii. 10 •
And every one who /
shall speak a word
against the son of man,
it shall be forgiven
him : but unto him
that blasphemeth
against the Holy
Spirit it shall"not be
forgiven.

"Stns of men" is printed in italics to point out a pouible confusion betweon
t and "sau of man," which is in Matthew and Luke, but not in .Mark.

t -

'35

APPENDIX

ii guilty of an eternal
fin.

Mk viii. 17
And in the way, he
asked his disciples,
saying unto them,
Who do men say that
I am?

Mk viii. ti
And he began to
teach them, that Me
son of man ^must
suffer nuny jnings,
and be rejected by
the elders, and the
chief priests, and the
scribes, and be killed,
and after three days
rise again.

Mk viii. 38 — ix. i
For - whosoever
shall be ashamed of
me and of my words
in this adulterous and
sinful generation, the
son of man also shall

son of man, it shall
be forgiven him ; but
whosoever shall speak
against the Holy
Spirit, it shall not be
forgiven him, neither
in this world (marg.
age) nor in thjit which
is to come.

Mt. xvl. 13
...he asked his
disriples, saying. Who
do men say that the
son of man nf (many
am. aut/i., that I t/u
son of man am) ?

Mt. xvi. 21
From that lime
began Jesus (some
am. aul/i., Jesus
f'hrist) to shew Vnlo
his di«ciples, |\>w
that he must go unto
Jerusalem, and suffer
many things of the
elders and chief
priests and scribes,
and be killed, and -
the third day be
raised up.

■Mt. jvi. 37 — 8
For the son of man
shall come in the
glory of his Father
with his angels ; and
then shall he. render
unto every man ac-

136

Lk. ix. 18
...the disciples
were with him : and
heasked them, saying,
Who do the multi-
tudes saiy that I am ?

I,k. ix. 12
saying. The son
of man must suffer
many things, and be
rejected of the elders
»nd chief priests and
scribes, and be killed,
and the third day be
raised up.

Lk. ix. 26 — 7
For whosoever
shall be ashamed of
me and of my words,
of him shall the son
of man be ashamed,
when he cometh in

APPENDIX

/

be ashamed of him,
when he cometh in
the glory of his
Father with the holy
ugelE

And he said unto
them, Verily I say
unto you, There be
some here of them
•hat stand (by), which
shall in no wise taste
of death, till they see
the kingdom of God
come with power'.

Mk ix. 9^10
And... he charged
them that theyshould
tell no man . what
things they had seen,
save when the son of
man should have '
risen again from the
dead'. And they .
kept the saying,
questioning among
themselves what the -
rising again from the
dead should mean.

cording to his deeds
(lit. doing).

Verily I say unto
you, Therf be some
of them that stand
here, which shall in
nowise taste of death,
till they see the son of
man coming in his
kingdom.

Mt.* xvii. 9
And... Jesus com-
manded them, saying,
Tell the vision to no
man, until /Ae son of
man be risen from
"the dead'.

hi« own glory, and

[the glory] of the

Father, ^ and of the

holy angels. ,.

J
But I tell you of'a
truth. There be some
of them that stand
here, which shall in
no wise taste of ■death,
till they see the king-
dom of God,

"Lk. ix. 36
And they held
their peace, and told
no. man in those days
any of the things
which they had seen.

Mk ix. II — 13

And they asked
hinS, saying. The
scribes say that Elijah

Mt. xvii.

-'3

And his disciples
iuked him, saying.
Why then say the

Lk. om.
but conop. Lk. i. 1 7
And he shall go
(somtane- au/A.,come

' Corap.re ,lso, in the Double Tnwli.ion, Mt, x. 3,-, p,„ii. Lk. ,ii 8_o-
Md. in Millhew-s Single Tr«li,ion, Ml. xx.. 3,. ''

« Thi. i. the only i„„„ce in which Je5us «ld5 " fmm the de«l " to the worf
men 01 railed ,„ His prediction, of His Passion (see p. j 1 foil.),

137

APPENDIX

must first come (marg.
[How is it] that the
scribes say... come?).
And he laid unto
Ihem, Elijah indeed
Cometh first, and
restoreth all things :
and how is it written
jl^ the son of man,
I^Kt he should suffer
Tnany things and be
set at nought ? But
I say unto you, that
Elijah is come, and
thjy have also done
unto him whatsoever
they listed, even as
it is written of'hiip.

scribes that Elijah
must first come!
And he answered
and said, Elijah' in-
deed Cometh, and
shall restore all
things : but I say
unto you, that Elijah
is come already,
and they knew him
not, but did unto
him whatsoever they
listed. Even so shall
Me son of man also
suffer of them. Then
understood the dis-
ciples that he spake
unto^hem of John
the Baptist.

nigh) before his face
in the spirit and
power of Elijah.

\

Mk ix. 30—32
And they... passed
through Galilee; and
he would not that
any man should know
it._ For he taught his
disciplesj; and said
unto them, The son of
' man is' delivered up
into the hands of
men, and they shall
kill him ; and when
he is killed, after
three days he shall
rise again. But they
understood iMt the
saying, and were
afraid to ask him.

Mt. xvii. 22 — ^3

And while fhey
abode (sotne ant.
autli., were gathering
themselves together)
in Galilee, Jesus said
unto them. The son
of man shall be de-
linered up into the
hands of men ; and
they shall kill him,
and the third day he
shall be raised up.
And they were ex-
ceeding sorry.

' Lk. ix. 43—5
But while all were
marvelling at all the
things which he did,
he said unto his dis-
ciples. Let these „
words sink into your
ears : for the son of
fiKinshallbe delivered
up into the hands of
men. But they un-
derstood not this
saying, and it was
concealed from them,
that they should not
perceive it : and they
were afraid to ask
him about this saying.*^

Better "is [to be] deliTered up.'
«3«

APPENDIX

Mk X. 20 —
Jesus said, Verily
I say unto you, There
is no man that hath
left house, or bre-
thren....

Mk X. 32 — 4
And they were...
going up to Jerusalem
...And he took again ,
the twelve, and began
to tell them the
things that were to
happen unto him,
[saying]. Behold, we
go up to Jerusalem :
and /At son of man
shall be delivered
unto the chief priests
an* the scribes: and
they shall condemn
him to death, and
shall deliver him unto
the Gentiles : and

> Ml. xix. 28 — 9

And Jesus said
unto them. Verily I
say unto you, that ye
which have followed
me, in the regenera-
tion when the son 0/
man' shall sit on the
throne of his glory,
ye also shall sit upon
twelve thrones, judg-
ing the twelve tribes
of Israel. And every
one that hath left
houses,or brethren

Lk. xviii. 29
.'Vnd he said unto
them. Verily I say
unto you, There; is
no man that
left house....

ere is

i

■^

Mt. XX. 17 — 19
And as Jesus was
goinguptojerusalem,
he ^ook the twelve
disciples apart, and...
he said unto them.
Behold, we go up to
Jerusalem ; and /Ae
son of man shall be
delivered unto the
chief priests and
scribes ; and they
shall condemn him
to death, and shall
deliver him unto the
Gentiles to mock,
and to scourge, and
to crucify: and the

Lk. xviii. 31 — 2
• • And he took unte
him the twelve, and
said unto them,' Be-
hold, we go up to
Jerusalem, and all
the things that are
written by (marg.
through)the prophets
shall beaccomplisl^ed
unto the son of man.
For he shall be de-
livered up unto the
Gentiles, and shall be
mocked and shame-
fully entreated and
spit upon ; and they
shall scourge and kill

-J^

' Thi.s passage of M.atthcw l>elongs strictly to the Double Tradition of
Matthew and I.uke, where the reader will find it parall. to Lk. xxii. ,8-30
But It IS inserte<l here to give a specimen of Matthew's method of eroupin£
traditions. t. r »

'39

APPENDIX

they shall mock him,
and shall spit upon
him, and shall scourge
him, and shall kill
him ; and after three
days he shall rise
again.

thfrd (lay he shall be
raised up.

him : and the third
day he shall rise
again.

Mk X. 43-5
Hul ii is not so
among yon : but
whosoever would be-
come great among
you, shall be .jpur
minister {maf^il^SbT-
vant) : and whosoever
would be first among
you, shall be servant
(/if. bondservant) of
all. For verily //k
son of man came not
to be ministered unto,
but to minister, and
to give his life a ran-
som for many.

Mt. XX. 26—8
Not so shall it be
among you: but who-
soever would become
great among you shall
be your minist«r
(mar);, servant); and
whosoever would be
first among you shall
be your servant (lit.
bondservant): even as
the son of man came
not to be ministered
unto, but to minister,
and to give his life a
ransom for many.

Lk. xxii. 16 — 7
• Bui ye [shall] not
[be] so : but he that
is the greater among
you, let him become
as the younger ; and
he that is chief, as he
that ^th serve. For
whether is greater, he
that sitteth at meat
(lit. reclineth), or he
that serveth ? is not
he that sitteth at meat
(///. reclineth)!" but I

<m in the midst of
ou as he that serveth.

Mk xili. 24 — 7
But in those days
...the stars shall be
falling ^om heaven,
and the powers that
are in the heavens
shall be shaken.
And then shall they
see the son of man
coming in clouds

Mt. xxiv. 29^—31
But immediately...
the stars shall fall
from heaven, and the
powers of the heavens .
shall be shaken: and
then shall appear the
sign of the^ son of man
in heaven': and then
shall all the tribes of

Lk. xxi. 25 — 28
And there shall
be signs in. ..stars;...
men fainting (marg.
expiring) for fear, and
for expectation. ..for
the powers /bf the
heavens shall be
shaken. .^nd then
shall they see the son

' Mt. xxiv. 30a ''the sign of the son of man" is repeateil under Matthew'.s
Single Tradition.

140

ARPENDIX

with great power and
glory. And then
shall he send forth
the angels, qnd shall
gather together his
elect ...

iB^

the earth mourn, and
they shall see /Ae son
of man comiiig on the
clouds of heaven
with power and great
glory. And he shall
send forth his angels
...and they shall
gather together his
elect

of man coming in a
cloud with power and
great glory. But
when these things
begin to come to
pass....

Mk xiii. 35

Watch therefore ;
for ye know not when
the lord'of the house
cometh, whether at
even ..or at cock-
crowing, or in the
morning; lest coming
suddenly he find you
sleeping. And what
I say unto you I say
unto all, Watch'.

Mk xiv. -I
Now after two days
was [the feast of] the
passover and the un-

.Ml. xxiv. 42 — 4
Watch therefore :
for ye know not on
what day your Lord
cometh. But... if the
master of the house
had Ittiown in what
watch.... Therefore be
ye also ready : for in
an hour that ye think
not the son of man
cometh.

Mt. xxvi. 2—3
Ye know that after
tjyo days the passover
cometh, and the son

Lk. xii. 37 — 40
Blessed are those
servants {Kt. bond-
servants) whom the
lord when he cometh
shall find watching.
But. ..if the master of
the house had known
in what hour.. ..Be
ye also ready; for*n
an hour that ye think
not the son of n§^
' cometh.

Lk. xxi. 36
But watch ye at
every season, mak-
ing supplication... to
stand before the son
of man. ■

Lk. xxii. I — 2
Now the feast of
unleavened bread
drew nigh, which Is

The parallel passages nf Mauhew and Luke will be found repeated in the
Double Tradition of .Maliliew and Luke where (hey come more appropriately than
here. Lk. xki. j6 is repealed under Luke's Single Iradilion.

'4« 11—2

APPENDIX

leavened bread ; and
the chief priests and

of man \\ dehvered
up to he irucified.

the scribes sought... «rhen were gathered
together the. chief

togethi
priests.

called the Passover.
And the chief priests
arid the scribes
sought....

Mk xiv. 21
For the s(tn of man
goeth, even as it
is written of him :
but woe unto that
man through whom
tht son of man is
betrayed ' !

Mt. xxvi. 24
The son of man
goeth, even as it is
written of him : but
woe unto that man
through whom the
son of man is be-
trayed' !

Lk. xxii. 22
For the son of man
indeed gosth, as it
hath been deter-
mmed : but woe unto
that man through
whom he isbetrayt^d'.

Mk xiv. 41- — 2
AnH he Cometh the
third time, and saith
unto them, Sleep on
now, and take your
rest : it is enough ;
the hour is come ;
behold, the son of
man is betrayed Mnto
the hands of sinners.
Arise, let us be going :
behold, he that be-
trayeth' me is at
hand.

Mt. xxvi. 45 — 6 ^>
Then cometh he
to the disciples, and
saiih unto them.
Sleep on now, and
take your rest : be-
hold, the hour is at
hand, and the son of
man is betrayed' into
the hands of sinners.
Arisg, let us be'going :
behold, he is at hand
that betrayeth' me.

Lk. om.

Mk xiv. 45—6 om. Mt. xxvi. 50 Lk. xxii. 48

.And Jesus said But Jesus said

unto him,. Friend, unto him, Judas,

" iV these

..i these three passages, the Greek for "betrayed" is the same as that for
"delive»il up."
■•^-iHlr these two passages, the Greek for "betrayed'' is the same is- that for
"delivered up."

142

APPENDIX

[do I that for which
thou art come.

betrayest thou the
son of man with a
kiss'?

Mk xiv. 61-7-4
Again the high
priest asked him, and
saith unto him, Art
thou the Christ, the
Son of the Blessed ?
And Jesus said, I
am : and ye shall see
the son of man sitting
at the right hand of
power', and coming
with the clouds of
heaven. And the
high priest rent his
clothes and saith,...
Ye have heard the
blasphemy....

Mk xvi, 6 — 7
Behold, the place
where they laid him !
But go, tell his dis-
ciples and Peter, He
goeth before you into
/

\It. xxvi. 63 — 5
And the high priest
said unto him, I ad-
jure thee by the living
<God, that thou tell
us whether thou be
the Christ, the Scfri of
God. Jesus saith
unto him, Thou hast
said: nevertheless I
say unto you, Hence-
forth ye shall see the
son of man sitting at
the right hand of
power", and coming
on the. clouds of
heaven. Then the
high priest rent ~his
garments, saying. He
hath spoken blas-
phemy

/

Lk. xxii. 67 — 71
saying, If thou art
the Christ, tell us.
But he said unto
them. If I tell you,
ye will not belitve :
and if I ask [you], ye
will not answer. But
from henceforth shall
the son of man be
seated at the right
hand of the power 'of
God. And they all
said, Art thou then
the son of God ?
And he said unto
them, Ye say that I
am (marg. Ye say
[it], because I am).
And they said, What
further need have we
of witness?...

Mt. xxviii. 6 — 7 Lk. xxiv. 6 — 7

Come, see the Remember how he

place where the Lord •• spake unlo you when
lay (many anc. aulh., he was yet in Galilee,
where he, lay). .\nd saying that the son of
go quickly and tell man must be de-

' This passage is repeated in the Single Tradition of Luke. It is place<l here
for the sake of the illustration that it receives from the fact that Mark omits it, and
Matthew deviates from it.

■ Betfer "the' power." Thisj|ime might interpret as "the Power," i.e. the
Almighty, or q6d, others as "rti power of God," which Luke has.

143

APPENDIX

Galilee: there shall
ye see him, as he
said unto you.

his disciples... and lo
he goeth before you
into Galilee ; there
shall ye see him : Iq,
I have told you.

livered up into the
hands of sinful men,
and be crucified, and"
the third day rise
again'.

' This pauage belongs strictly to the single tradition of Luke, where it will be
found. But it is placed here, ist, to illustrate the use of "the son of man" in
quotations by others of what Jesus said; ind, to shew the apparent confusion, in
the context, arising from a mention of " Galilee " in slightly different circumstances.

\

»44

_x

APPENDIX

PART II

THE DOUBLE TRADITION OF MATTHEW AND LUKE'

Mt. V. 1 1

Blesfed are ye when [men]

shall reproach you, and persecute

you, and say all manner of evil

against you falsely, for my sake.

Mt. xi. 1 8 — 19
For John came neither eating
nor drinking, and they say, He
hath a devil (lit. demon). The
son of man came eating and
drinking, and they say. Behold,
a gluttonous man, and a wine-
bibber, a friend of publicans and
sinners ! And wisdom is (marg.
was) justified by her works {many
yine. aulh., children).

-Vlt. viii. 19 — JO
.And there came^ji scribe, (///.
one scnbe), and ^d unto him.
Master (marg. Teacher)
follow thee whithcrsoe^r thou
goest. And Jesus iaith unto
him. The foxes have/holes, ancT
the birds of the heiven [have]

\M. vi. 22

Blessed are ye, when men

shall hate you, and when they

shall separate you [from their

company], and re])roach you,

and cast out your nairie as evil,
for the son of man's sake.

Lk. vii. 33—4
For John the Baptist is«come
eating no bread nor dripking
wine ; and ye say. He hath a
devil (lit. demon), i^ son 0/
man is come eating and drinking;
and ye say. Behold, a gluttonous
man, and a winebibber, a friend
of^publicans and sinners. And
wisdom is (marg. was) justilied of
all her children.

Lk. ix. 57—8

And as they went in the way,

man said }into him, I

follow thee whitiiersoever

thou goest. And Jesus said

unto him. The foxes have holes,

and the birds of the heaven

[have] nests (lit. lodgin^-placos) ;

' There is no coltection of parallels peculiar to Mark and Matthew, or to
Mark and Luke, important enough In lie collecleO as a separate Doulile TraJitioh.
Such as there are. will l>e found in the Triple Tradition. « - .

As to the reasons for following Luke's oriler instead of Matthew's, sec p. i^j.

' . i> '

'MS

APPENDIX

nests (/// lodging-places) ; but
the son of man lyith not where to
lay his head.'

but the son of man hath not
where to lay his head.

Mt. xii. 4CW
For as Jonah was three days
and three nights in the belly of
the whale (/;/. sea-monster), so
shall the son of man be three
days and three nights in the
heart of the earth.

Lk. xi. 30
For even as Jonah l)ecanie a
sign' unto the Ninevites, so shall
also the son of man be to this
generation.

Mt. X. 32^3
Everyone therefore who shall,
confess me' (//'/. in me) liefore
men, him (lit. in him) jvill I also
confess before my Father Which
is in heaven. But whosoever
shall deny me before men, him
will I also deny beTore my Father
which is in heaven'.

Mt xii. 32 /

...speak a word against the
son of man...''.

/

Mt. xxiv. 43 — 4 r
But know this (marg. But this
ye know) that if the master of
the house had known in what
watch the thief was coming, llf
would have watched, and would
not have suffered his house to be
broken through (///. digged

Lk. xii. 8 — 9
And I say ui^to you, Everyone
who shall confess me yit. in. me)
before men, him (///. in him)
shall the son of man also confess
before the) angels of Cod : but
he that denieth me in the presence
of men shall be denied in the
presence of the angels of God.

Lk. xii. 10
...speak ^a word aj
son of man-.

%f^-

St the

Lk xii. 39 — 40
But know this (marg. But this
ye know) that if the master of
the house had known in what
nour the thief was coming, he
would have watched, and not
have left his house to be broken
through (/// digged through).

' C'omp. .Mk viii. 38— ix. i "the son of man also shall be ashamed until Ihey
see the kingdom of God come with power," and the [Mrall. Mt. xvi. 17,
Lk. ix. 16—7 (pp. 1.(6-7).

'' See also the Triple Tradition, parall. lo .Mk iii. 18—9.

146

APPENDIX

through). Therefore be ye also
ready : for in an hour that ye'
think not the son of man cometh.'

Be ye also ready ; for in an hour
that ye think not tht son of man
Cometh.

Mt. xxiv. 26 — 7 <
If therefore they shall say unto
you, Behold, he is in the wilder-
ness : go not forth : Behold, he
is in the inner chambers; believe
[it] («a>y. .[them]) not. For as
"the lightning cometh forth from
the east, and is seen even unto
the west ; so shall be the coming
(///presence) of the son of man.

Lk. xvii. 23 — 4
And they shall say to you, Lo,
there I Lo, here ! go not away,
nor follow after [them] : for as the/
lightning, when it lighteneth ou/
of the one part under the heaven,
shineth unto the other part under
heaven ; so shall the son of man
t)e in his day, (Some anc. auth.
omit in his day.)

Mt. xxiv. 37 — 9
■ And as [were]' the days of
Noah, so shall be the commg
(lit presence) of the son of Man. ,
For as in those days... they were
eating and' drinking. ..until. .the
flood came and took them all
away ;" so shall be the coming
(/it. presence) of the son of man.

Lk. xvii. 26 — 7, 30
And as it came to pass in the
days of Noah, even so shall it be
also in the days of tHe son of
man. They ate, they drank...
until... tne flood destroyed them
all. Likewise even as it came to
pass in the days of Lot. ..after
the same manner shall it be in
the day that the son of man is
revealed. '

Mt. xviii. 10 — 13
. . . tlieir angels do always behold
the face of my Father which is
in heaven \many authorities., some
ancient, insert ver. 1 1 For the son
■of man came to save that which
was lost] How think yei> if any
man have a hundred sheep...

Lk. xix. 9 — 11'

. . he also is a son of Abraham.

For the son of man came to seek

and to save that which was lost.

And as they heard these things ' . . .

' This is repeated In the Single Tradition of Luke.
. '47

APPENDIX

Ml..

2g

Verily;
which tm

unto you, that ye
allowed me, in the
regeneration wfl^h M< son of man
shall sit onlthe throne o'f his
glory, ye aljy shall sit upon
twelve thrones, jVlging the twelve
■tribes of Israel

- Lk. xxii. 28 — 30
But ye are they which have
continued with me in my tempta-
tions ; and I appoint unto, you

that ye may eat and drink

at my table in my kingdom; and
ye shall sit on thrones judging
the twelve tribes of Israel.

148

AfPENDIX

PART III

THE SINGLE TRADiTION OF MATTHEW

Mt. X. 23. But when they persecute you in this city, flee into
the next : for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone through
the cities of Israel, till the son of man be come.

• Mt. xiii. 37. And he answered and' said, tie that soweth the
good seed is the son of, man.'...

Mt. xiii. 40 — 41. As therefore the tares are gathered up and
burned with fire ; so shall it be in the end of the world (marg. the
consummation of the age). The son of man shall send forth his
angels, and they shall gather....

Mt. xvi. 13. Jesus... asked his disciples, sayirfg, Who do men ,

say that the son of man is ? (manyanc. auth.^ that I the son of man

am)'.

• » ,

Mt. xri. 27 — 8. ...and then shall he render unto every man

according to his deeds (lit. doing). Verily I say unto you. There be

soitie of then\ that stand here, ivhich shall in no wife faste of death,

till they see the son of man coming in hU kingdom'. -

[Mt. xviii. II.' R.V. ^qiarg. " Afnny auth., some ancient, insert
For the sok of man came to save that *hich was lost^"] '

Mt. xix. j8. "Verily I say unto you, that ye... when the son of
man shall sit on the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit.. '."

' S« also the Triple Tradition, parallel to Mk viii. 17. '

' .Se« also the Triple Tradition where thjs is parallel to Mk viii. 38 and ix. i.
' See also the Double Tradition, Mt. xviii. i&— 11, Lk. xix. 9— 11.
« Sel also the Double Tradition, Mt. xix. 18, Lk. xxii. 18—30; and the Triple
Tradition, parallel to Idk; x. 19 foil.

M9'

APPENDIX

Mt. xxiv. ,30 a. And then shall appear the sign of thr son of man
in heaven : and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn'.

Mt. XXV. 31 — 2. But when the son of mari_ shall come in his
glory, and all the angels with liim, then shall he sit on the throne of
his glory : and before him .shall be gathered all the nations. ..

Mt. xxvi J. .Ye know that after two days the passover cometh,
and the son of man is delivered up to be crucified^

' See also the Triple Tradition, parallel to Mk xiii. 14 — 7.
' See also the Triple Tradition, parallel to Mk xiv. i.

/

< <*

•50

APPENDIX

PART IV

THE SINGLE TRADITION OF LUKE

Lk.-vi. 22. ...when they shaN cast out your name as evil for the
son of man's sniie'.

Lk. ix. 54—6. ...James and John. ..said, Lord, wilt thou that
we bid fire to come down from heaven, and consume them (Many
dnc. auth. add even as Elijah did)? ,But he turned, and rebuked
them. (Somt anc. aulh. add and said. Ye know not what manner of
spirit yeare of. Some, but fewer, add also For the son of man came
not to destroy men's lives, but to save [them]).

Lk. xii. 8. Every one who shall confess me (///. in me) before
. men, him (lit. in him) shall the son of man also confess'....

I.k. xvn. 22. And he said unto the disciples, -The days will
come, when ye shall desire to see one of the days of the son of man,
and ye shall not see it. .^

Lk. xvii. 28—30. Likewise even as it came to pass in, the days

"'^ ^' after the same manner shall it be in the day that M* son

of man 's revealed'.

Lk. xviii. 6— 8. And the Lord said... And shall not God avenge
his elect...? I say unto you that he will aven'g? them speedily.
Howbeit, when the son'of man cometh, shall he find faith {mar,;, the
faith i on the earth?

Lk. xix. 10. ...forasmuch as he also is a son of Abraham,
the son of man came to seek and to save that which was lost*.

For

' Sec the I><>uble Tradition, where this is parallel to Mt. v. u.
' See Ihe Double Tradition, where this is parallel to Ml. x. 31-1.
" .See the Doable Tradition, where this is parallel to Ml. xxiv. iy~^
' See the Doubl, Tradition, where this is parallel 10 a brackele.l passage in
Ml. xvni. 10 — la.

'5'

APPENDIX

- _Lk. xxi, 36. But watch ye at every season, making supplication,
that ye may prevail to escape all these things that shall come to pass,
and to stand before the son of man'.

X

the

Lk. xxii. 48. But Jesus said unto him, Judas, betrayest
son.of man with a kiss"?

Lk. xxiv. 6—7. -Remember how he spake unto you when he
was yet in Galilee, spying that the son of man must be delivered up
into the hands of sinful men, and be ctucified, and the third day
^rise again'. *

' See the Triple Tradition, where this is parallel to Mk xiii. 35. ,
' See the Triple Traditidh, where this is parallel to Mk xiv. «5— 6 omitting,
Mt. xKvi. 50 deviating. t '

' See the Triple Tradition, where this is parallel to Mk xvi. 6—7. *

»5»

APPENDIX

• ^ PART V

THE SINGLE TRADITION OF JOHN

Jn i. 51. And he saith unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto you,
Ye shall see the hearen opened, and the angels of God ascending ,
and descending upon the son of man.

Jn ill. 13. And no man hath ascended into heaven, but he that
descended out of heaven, [even] Iht son of man, which is in heaven
\many anc. auth. omit " which is in heaven "].

Jn iii. 14—15. And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the
wilderness, even so must the son 0/ man be lifted up: that whosoever
believeth may in him have eternal life.

•Jn v. 26—7. For as the Father hath life in himself, even so
gave he to the Son aiso to have life in himself: and he gave him
authority to execute judgment, becaus* he is the son of man (marg.
a son of man).

Jn vi. 27. Work not for the meat which perisheth, but- for the
meat which abideth unto eternal life, which the son of man shall give
unto you : for him tlie Father, [even] God, hath sealed.

Jn vi. S3. Verily, verily, I sayunlo you, Except ye eat the flesh
of the son of man and drink his blood, ye have not life in yourselves.

Jn vi. 61—2. Doth this cause you to stumble? [What] then if
ye should behold the son of man ascending where he was before?

Jn viii. 28. Jesus therefore said. When ye have lifted up the son
of man, then shall ye know that I am [he] and [that] I do (marg.
I am, or, I am [he] : and I do) nothing of myself, but as the Father
taught me, I speak these thmgs.

Jn ix. 35—7. Jes.is heard that they had cast him [i.e. the blind
man] out ; and finding iiim, he said Dost thou believe on the Son of

•53

APPENDIX

God {many anc. aul/i., the son of tnan^)} He answered and said,
And who is he, Lord, that I may believe on him ? Jesus said unto
him Thou hast both seen him, and he it is that speaketh with thee.

Jn xii. 23. I'he hour is come, that tht son of man should be
glorified.

' Jn "''■ 34 '"he multitude therefore answered him, We have
heard out of the law that the Christ abideth for ever . and how
sayest thou. The son of man must be lifted up? who is this son of
man ?

Jn xiii. 31—2. When therefore he (Judas) was gone out, Jesus
saith, Now Is {marg. was) the son of man glorified, and God is
(marg. was) glorified in him ; and God shall glorify him in himself,
and straightway shall he glorify him.

' Weslcott and Ilort give '•tht son of man" in their lixt without .iny in<irginal
alternative.

cr^.

«54

NOTES

\

( ■

NOTES
PEDICATION AND PREFACE

Sl'AC.E

V '-THE SONS OF MAV." This ,s more literal than "the sons of
men or " ,he children of men," which, in our. Knglish Versions of
the ll.ble, ,s the usual rendering of the Hebrew "the sons of adam"
(an ambiguous expression meaning either "the sons o( Adam" or
the sons of man;' see p. xviii . The Dedication is intended to
remind (or inform) the reader of the similarity in Hebrew between
" the son of man, or Adam " and " the sons of ,nan, or Adam "

VII Practically always. Ihe only exceptions are Lk. xxiv. 7, Jn xii
i^; behold, one like... \iAn.\\\. \-r,.

viii Enoch, S 46 (ed. Charles, to whose work I am very greatly in-
debted though not able- to agree with all his conclusions), see the

X (h) foil'" "" '''"' ^"'""""' ^"'"'"" ^"^ """^ ^"- ^^'''^^'

ix Vaniei once^ Dan. viii. 17.

X The appearance of a man, E«k. i. 26: one Hie a son of man,

Uan. VI, 13 ; a vision, Eeek. ,. 4-27, Dan. vii. 2-28 ; /,/ „ „„^,
Uen. I. 26. '

xi Quoted by our Lord, Mt. xxi. 16 (from the LXX), comp. Mt. xi 25
see also Heb. ... 6-8 and . Cor. xv. 27 ; Isaiah's description. Is. liii'
3. 1". 14 ; the sons of man, or, of Adam, see note above, on the
Uedicationv
XII The man, see /« Memoriam cxvii, Epiot. ii. 9, 3.

xiii Man shall not live. Ml. i„. 4, Lk. iv. 4 (quoting Deut. viii. 3)

XIV Ye shall see, ]n\. -^i,

XV Hillel, see pp. 92-3; Aramaic phrase, see also pp. ,,-,2
and the note on p. 11 below (p. 159).

xvii " The spirit," Ezek. i. 12 ; •• 5/,„V," Ezek, ii. 2 (but R.V. and
rargum the spirit ■■). The difference is ,00 technical for discussion
here ; later on, see p. 3 foil.

Not in the Talmud, see Dalman's Words of Jesus p. 248.

■57 ij^j

XIX

}

NOTES

IPART I

I'AGK >y

3 What is man, I's. viii. 4 ; parallelisms, Ezek. i. 1, li. 2, viii. 3, xl. 2
etc. ; new heart and new spirit, Ezelt. xi. 19, xviii. 31, xxxvi. 26; other
resemblances, Ezek. i. 1, iv. 6'.

4 The likeness of a man, Ezek. i.'j; understand, O son of adam,
JJan. viii. 17.

5 The profane friends of Job. Matthew Arnold takes the opinion
of these profane friends as beinc what " Israel knew." See Litera-
ture and Dogma chap. i. 3 "All this, whith scientific theology loses
sitjht of, Israel, who had but poetry and eloquence, and no system,
and who did not mind contradicting himself, knew. ' Is it any
pleasure to the Almighty, that thou art righteous.' (Job xxii. 3).'
What a blow to our ideal of that magnified and non-natural man,

, 'the moral and intelligent Governor'! Say what we can about tiod,
say our best, we have yet, Israel knew, to add instantly : ' Lo, t^ese
arc fringes of his ways ; hut hotu little a portion is heard of him
(Job xxvi. 14) !' Yes, indeed, Israel remembered that, far better than
our bishops do "

It is no very great exaggeration to say that this is as absurd as it
would be to qucte lago and Othello in two consecutive sentences to
shew what " Shakespeare knew " or what " England knew." The
first of these quotations is the utterance of Eliphaz the Temanite to
whom Cod subsequently says (Job xli. 7), 'Wfy wrath is kindled
against thee and against thy two friends ; for ye have not spoken of
me the thing that is right, as my servant Job hath."

No doubt we should do ill to call God as M,itthew Arnold
sarcastically says, "the moral and intelligent Governor" of the
universe. But the reason would be, not that it is too anthro-
pomorphic but that it is not anthropomorphic or affectionate enough.
" Holy," "righteous," "loving," and " Father," would be better.

In a bad sense, see I\'otes on N. T. Criticism, 2998 (iv), {x);_Middle
Ages, see Dalman's Words of Jesus pp. 247 — 8.

6 Prediction, Gen. iii. 15 ; « little child. Is. xi. 6.

7 Babes, little ones etc, Mt. xxi. 16, Lk. x. 21, Mt. xi. 25, Mk ix. 37,
Mt. xviii. 2-- 5 f\c.; Jewish comments, see A'otes an iV. 7". Criticism,
2998 (xi) foil. ; the power, 2 Cor. xii. 9 ; similarly "the name" some-
times means the Name of God; out of vjeakness, Heb. xi. 34; the
same epistle, Heb. ii. 6 foil.

' The eighth Psalm, ihe fuNl ch.ipler of Kzekiel, ami some other parages of
Scripture, are ^o fre(|uenll)> referred to thai the references will not be always
repeateti.

' -58

NOTES

PAGE

8 He shall give hh angels charge, I's. xci. 1 1 — r3 i scorpions, Lk. x.
19, Ezek. ii. 6.

9 IVith the ■wild beasts, Mk i. 13.

10 My name, Mk ix. 37, Mt. xviii. 5, Lk.,ix. 48; elsewhere, Mk iii. 23,
Mt. xii. 26, Lk. xi. 18.

11 This vision. For the visions of Daniel and Ezekiel referred to in
■» this chapter, see Dan. vii. and Ezek. i. passim, and especially

Dan. vii. 13 "one like unto a son of man" (see Preface pp. vii— viii.)
and Ezek. i. 26 "a likeness as the appearance of a man."

In Aramaic. On " son of man " in Aramaic, as corresponding to
" man " in Hebrew, and on the forms and meanings of the Aramaic
term, see Prof. Driver's article in Hastings' Dictionary (" Son of
Man").

The Aramaic usage may be illustrated by the aiicient Syriac on
which see Prof. Burkitt's Evangelion da-mepharreshe, vol. ii. p. 272.
While describing the attempts of the Syrian translators to render the
gospel phrase, he says concerning one of them that it "does not occur
in Syriac, except as a rendering of the gospel phrase...." He also
points out that the translators sometimes substitute a Syriac word
^ corresponding to the Latin vir for the correct word corresponding to
the Latin homo (so as to make Christ " filius viri"!) and that
Dan. vii. 13 is translated in the (Peshilta) Syriac version "son of
men " (for " a son of n man "). " We can only suppose," he adds,
"that the meaning of the Greek was incomprehensible."

It would also be " incomprehensible," probably, to most Jews
familiar with the Hebrew Scriptures in which the phrase " son oj the
man (ha-adam) " never occurs in the singular.

This "incomprehensibility" can be explained if we suppose that
Jesus called Himself " Bar-Adam," Son of Adam (the name given in
the Aramaic Targum to Ejekiel), and if this was translated by the
Greek evangelists as though "Adam" meant "the man."

On Aramaic ^renderings of the Hebrew " son pf man," and on
their occasional inconsistency, see the Author's Notes on N.T.
Criticism, 2998 (iii) foil. On the perplexity and divergent inter-
pretatibns of the earliest Christian commentators, see ib. (xxxiv) foil.

12 R. Aiibii, see the Bab. Talmud, Chag. 14 a, Sanhedr. 38* j the
clouds, see p. 61 foil. Origen's view of "the clouds," and the
Pauline view, will be discussed in detail in The Son of Man (see
above, p. xx) ; aiids... characteristics, compare Rev. i. 13—14 with
Dan. vii. 9.

13 Calmly etc.. Bacon's Essays xi. 108. ' •

14 One shepherd, Ezek. xxxiv. 23, xxxvii. 24, Jn x. 16.

15 Ezekiel and Hosea, see the preceding note, and Hos. iii. 5 ; the
Second EsdraS, see Notes on N. T.C., 2998 (Iv) g.

'59

NOTES

PACI!

17 Authority lo forgiv,; Mk ii. lo, Mt. ix. 6, Lk. v. 24; lo men,
Mt. IX. 8 ; "Afan" „s "man" will become, see p. 28 "man is not
Man as yet " ; /,// ,„ plainly^ Jn x. 24.

18 Who s.xy men etc., Mt. xvi. 13 foil. ; ////„/ „/ etc., In xil r-d
comp. lii. 14. » ' .> • J- ■»!

• 19 Quotcs.../)avid, Mk xii. 36-7, Mt. xxii. 43-S, Lk. xx. 42-4,
comp. I's. ex. I. .- t ».

20 /« M«/ <i.iy. Is. xix. 24-5 ; ,. /.,„„i. Rev. v. 6-13 ; „ roll of
a book, Ezek. n. y-io; overcome, Jn xvi. 33, Rev v 5

?■■*' '"».? "/ /!/.««, Rev. XV. 3, eomp. Exod. xv. ,-.3 ; ■u,orthy A
Ike lamb. Rev. v. 12. ■' , ^

22 ^^ W^«/ / rf„, J„ xili. 7 ; one day, tJen. i. 5 R.V., where A.V. has
the first day." The text lent itself to, an.l received, mystical
mterpretations.
24 Man shall not live, Mt. iv. 4, Lk. iv. 4 quoting Deut. viii. 3 ; the

Jirst instance, Lk. iv. 41 parall. to Mk i. 34, comp. Ml. viii. 17
28 Tremble, Jas. ii. ig ; fear, Mk v. 7, Mt. v,ii. 29, Lk. viii. 28 j
Mk 1. 24, Lk. iv. 34 ; another passage, Mk iii. 1 1 — 12, Mt. xii 16 •'
Ikty that were in the boat, Mt. xiv. 32-3, comp. Mk vi 51-2
28 Jam[a]sono/the[One]aod,]nx.ib. Here the ojtiission of the
definite article before " son," and its insertion before " God," make
the meaning perfectly clear. Where the definite article is omitted
before both nouns, there is ambiguity ; but in Mt. xiv. 33 "thou art
Cod's Son (lit. of God Son), ' Jn xix. 7 " He ought to die because
he made himself Son of God," some kind of supernatural sonship is
implied by the contexts. This supernaturalness is still more definite
when the article is inserted before both nouns, as in Jn i. 49 "Thou
art the Son of the [One] God." It should be noted that Hebrew
does not usually attempt to express these distinctions ; at all events
Dehtisch gives the same Hebrew in Mt. xiv. 33, Jn x. 36, and xix. 7.
The fourth evangelist seems to be attempting to shew how Christ's
spiritual claims to sonship and unity with God were misunderstood
and despiritualised, at first even by such disciples as Nathanael, and
to the last by the Jews.

/ and the Father, Jn x .30; my Father worketh, Jn v 17 ■
equality with God, Philipp. ii. 6, comp. Jn x. 33 and v. 18.
27 The dtad shall hear etc., Jn v. 25-7 ; jirst menlwn, Jn i. 47-51 ;
hratl. Gen. xxxii. 28 foil. ; a ladder, (ien. xxviii, 12.

29 Cosiba, see Schurer i. ii. 298, comp. Numb. xxiv. 17; another^
passage. Numb, xxiii. 19 "the son of man that he should repent.''
The words are twisted about by R. Abbahii, see Notes on N. T.C.,
2998 (xviii).

30 Their heart. Is. xxix. 13 (LXX) quoted in Mk vii. 6 Mt
XV. 8.

160 '

NOTES

l'A(,E

31 Mo,r than the sons of m„n, Is. lii. ,4; M, Kfihlle to the Hebrew^,
Heb. II. 6 II, and Heb. xli. 6- 7, comp. Deut. viii. 3-5.

Miin thai is in honour, l>s. xlix. 30; heir of all Ihini^s, Heb. i.

1—2 1 son of Ai/iim, Lk. lii. 38.

Penile/, I
liii. pnssim.

33 Ptniiel, r.en.-.-cxxJi. 30-1 ; the Sujerini; Servant, Is. lii. 1 ,-14
llll. tnssim.

36 Authority, see, in the .Synoptisls, Mk ii. 10, Ml. ix 6, Lk v 24
Mk I. 22.-7, Mt. vii. 2y, Lk. iv. 32-6: and in John, i. ,2,' x! is'
V. 27; lord of the sabbath, Mk ii. 28, Mt. xii. 8, Lk. vi. 5 romp'
Jn V. ^—17.

37 The Strong, Mk iii. 27, Mt. xii. 29, Lk. xi. 2. --2; / have
conquered, Jn xvi. iy

39 A xlultonous man, Mt. xi. 19, Lk. vii. 34 ; foxes have holes,
Mt. VIII. 20, Lk. ix. 58 ; glory, Jn v. 43-4 ; '< SamaritaH etc.,
Jn VI1I. 48—9.

40 Lay his head, Ml. viii. 20, Lk. ix. 58, Jn xix. 30; see /ohannine
Grammar, 7MA (1), quoting Ongen's Commentary ; Hosea's pro-

. phecy, Hos. vi. 1-2 ; was delivered up, Rom. iv. 25, printed by
Wustcoit and Hort as referring to Is. liii. 12 (L.XX) and quoted by
Jerome on Is. liii. 12, seethe Author's Fariulosis, passim.

41 Made intercession. Is. liii. 12 ; *///,-,/, Mk viii. 31, .Mt. xvi. 21,
Lk. ix. 22 etc. ; crucified, Mt. xx. 19 ; smitten, Hos. vi. 2.

43 / will smile, Mk xiv. 27, Mt xxvi. 31, comp. Zech. xiii. 7 smite
(imperative) ; the quotation from Hosea, i.e. Hos. vi. i» 3, see pp. 40,
42, .ind 47 where it is given at full length ; slkitten by God,
Is. liii 4—5.

„44-5 Was going to die, jn xii. 33, ambiguous. "Was going" might
imply (i) intention, (2) destiny, comp. Jn vi. 6, 15, vii. 35, xiv. 22 ;
lifted up, jn iii. 14, xii. 32, Is. lii. 13, and see f ohannine Grammar,
2211 b, c, 26*2 b ; glorified, Jn xii. 23 ; ransom, Mk x. 45, Mt. xx. 28,
compare Lk. xxii. 27, Jn xiii. 3—5, on which see Notes on N.T.
•Criticism, 2963—4 giving Origcn's comment.

46 Possessor, Mater, liuycr, V,en. xiv. 19—22, and Deut. xxxii. 6, see
Gesen. Oxf , 888-9 ; taught by Paul, see 1 Cor. vi. 20, vii. 23
"bought,' also (;aL iii. 13, iv. 5 (lit.) "bought out," i c. redeemed. '

47 Raising up, and on the third day, Hos. vi. 1—2.

48. On the third day. ..after three days, compare Mk viii. 31, ix. 31,
X. 34 "after three days," with .Ml. xvi. 21, xvii. 23, xx. 19, Lk. ix. 2J,
xviii. 33 "(on) the third day," and Jn ii. 19 foil, "in three days" ;
false witness etc., .Mk xiv. 56-8, .Mt. xxvi. 6&-1, comp. Mk xv. 29,
Mt. xxvii. 40.

49 .Smite the shepherd, see p. 43 ; inhabiteth eternity. Is. Ivii. 15 ;
the sacrifices of U0.I, I's. Ii. 17 ; mercy (or, iindness) and not s,unfice,
Mt. ix. 13, xii. 7, quoting Hos. vi. 6. ,

161

NOTES

vnr.i

49 PLACE is a frequent Tahnudic name of God, and though Jesus
would not be likely to use the term, He would be likely to adopt the
thought implied in the name, that is, that tiod is independent of
place, all things living in Him. Comp. Gen. xxvili. ii R.V. marg.
" Heb. the place," afterwards called Bethel, " House of (led."

50 r/ie TtmpU of his body, Jn ii. 21 — 2 ; the hour comelh, Jn v. 25.

51 From Ike litaii, Mk ix. 9~io, Mt. xvii. 9 (not in Lk. ix. 36),
comp. Lk xxiv^45- 6, J" 'i' 22.

62 Mean! or said, see Johannine Grammar, 2487 foil, or Notes on
N.T.C., 2837 (iii) ,1, Ttnif, handle, Lk. xxiv. jy ; other passages,
Jn XX. 9, Lk. xxiv. 26 ; the Epistle, 1 Cor. xv. 4.
' M Like Jonah, comp. Jon. ii. 2—4 ; in the great Hebrew prophets,
see Is. viii. 18 (quoted in Heb. ii. 13), Hos. i. 6—9, Jer. xxvii. 2,
xxviii. 10 foil., Ezek. iv. 4 foil., xxiv. 16—21 ; my dead body. Is. xxvi.
19, commented on in Horae Hebraicae on Jn nil. 24 ; the Babylonian
Talmud, Sanhedr. 90 b.

86 Authority. Jerome, on Hos. vi. 2, blends Christ's active with
His passive fulfilment. " I'ercutit ergo l)ominus...Vivificat post
dies duos et die lertio resurgens ab inferis omne hominum secum
suscitat genus." Origen (Horn. Exod. v. 2) quoting Hos. vi. 1,
makes the whole fulfilment passive, " Prima dies nobis passio
Salvatohs est, et secunda, qua descendit in infernum, tertia autem
resurrectionis est dies." Iloth writers imply that the passage points
to Christ. On the various Jewish interpretations, and especially Ibn
Ezra, who interprets "in two days" as "in a short time," see
Paradosis, 1306.

87 The Northern Kingdom. Hos. i. 2 — 5 " the land "" refers to
Israel ; a journey of three days, Josephus, Life S 52 ; Hezekiah, see
2 Chr. XXX. 6— II ; quoted. ..twice, see p. 49 ; both of them together,
(icn. xxii. 8. One Targum (Jer. 1) has "both of them in heart
entirely as one," another (Jer. 11) " both of them together with
a contrite heart " ; on the third day, Gen. xxii. 4, see Philo i. 457 ;
*(' thou perfect, (;en. xvii. 1 (comp. Mt. v. 48 " Be ye therefore
perfect (R.V. Ye therefore shall be perfect) as ybur heavenly Father
is perfect ").

88 The third day I am perfected, Lk. xiii. 32 ; Origen and Jerome,
see above, note to p. 56 ; the words of Moses, Exod. iii. 18.

89 We will worship. Gen. xxii. 5 ; as it is said. Gen. xxii. 14 ; could
«o/^^ ^o//j!f«, comp. Acts ii. 24iyo«<iA, Mt. xii. 40, Jon. i. 17. Origen
has left no comment on Jon. iii. 3 " three days' journey," but Jerome's
(which suggests indebtedness to Origen) takes the "three days"
as referring to Christ's sending the apostles to baptize in the name
of the Three Persons, and Jon. iii. 4 " one day " as referring to the
One God.

162

NOTES

I'ACl - ■

61 H't/A Me cinuils (Dan. vii. 13). This occurs in Mk xiv. 62, hi*
not exactly in Mk xiii. 26, Mt. xxiv. 30, xxvi. 64, Lk. xxi. 27, which
have a different preposition.

62 SMall he nmni/esletl, I Jn iii- 2, Col. iii. 4, Clem. Rom. ^ 5" ; i"""'
conneilion, 1 Thess. iv. 17; shull juiixe ant^ehy I Cor. vi. 3; holy ones
or Minis, 1 Thess. iii. 13 ; Ihe inii;tls of his f>ou'er\ 2 Thess. i, 7 ;
angels of eril, I's. Ixxviii. 49. '

63 \fillon, Comus 1. 218 "llim to whom all things ill Are hut as
slavish officers of vengeance"; Ihc same lonlext, 2 Thess. i. 10;
not "angels" in the onlimiry sense. The proof of this is too technical
to be given here. It will be given in The Son of Man (see above
p. i.\)-jnot ev>n to Me Son, Mk xiii. 32, Mt. xxiv. 36 ; almost non-
oicurrent- It does not occur elsewhere in Mk, but it occurs in
Mt. xi. 27 (parall. to I.k. x. 22V

64 Thesi' three. Johannine instances, Jn i. ;i, xii. 29, xx. 12 ; heiause
he is son of man, Jn v. 27 ; e^ier loilh the Loril, 1 Thess. iv. 17.

65 Follow the Lamb, xiv. 4 ; may be all one, Jn xvii. 20— 2 1 ; always
"coming" Jn i. 9; follow thou me, Jn xxi. 22 ; the secret things,"
Deut. xxix. 29.

66 if any one love me, Jn xiv. 23 ; Another, a Panulete etc., Jn xiv.
16—18, see Johannine Grammar, 2382-3, 2630, 2793; glorified,
Jn xiii. 31 ; some portion of ourselves, Epict. I. i. I2.f:

69 In thy glory, Mk x. 37; the parall. Mt. xx. 21 has "in thy kingdom";
fohn...in his prolof^ue, Jn i. 14, 15, 18, comp. Jn v. 44.

70 That they may behold, ]n xv\\. n.

i6j

NOTKS

I'AkT II'

PAliB

74 Thi: Uison. See Is. Ixi. 1-4, and i(,mp I.k. iv. iS ig, on which
sec Hr>rae Hchrai.ae as to the length i)f .1 readinK ; iniomft,uibilily,
see Joseph. Aiil. xvjii. 1, 5, ThSt ihe meaning is "incompatibility,"
not "superiority," is indicated by I'hilo ii. 370 and other passages.

75 Jesus. ..ih, rem/>U, I.k. ii. ^j y, Jn ii, 13-17 ; monopolies, comp.
Hor. Hell, on >lt. xxi. 13.

76 I'redu h;l, M k xiii. 2, Mt. xxiv. 3, Lk. xxi (> ; destroy this temple etc.,
Jn 11. 19-22 ; build iinolher etc., Mk xiv. 58, comp. Mt. xxvi. 61,
Lie. cm.; she^on above, see I'art I, chapters ix and x ; l.ulti...omille,l
them, I.k. xxii. 66 foil. (comp. Mk xiv. 56 -.;, .{ft. xxvi. 59 61) and
I.k. xxiii. 35 (comp. .Mk XV. 29, Mt. xxvii. 40,1. ' ■

n ' A lontrite spirit. Is. Ivii. 15, comp. I's. Ii. 17; the phtt,- oj my
throne, Kzek. xliii. 7 (sec pp. 81 3) ; t..iMfl«/ liw/Zj, Zcch. ii. 2^4 ;
Jewish IraMtion, stu Valkut on Zcch. ad. loc. ; the Lord is there.
Kiek. xlviii. 35-; I have formed him, I5. xliii. 7, 1.

78 All Israel, Koni. xi. 36 ; "Misure the temple. Rev. xi. 1 ; the
measure of ,1 m„ti, Ke« xxi. 10—17 ; the t-U'elve tribes, Rev. vii. 4 ;
liviiij,' ttonet, I Hct. li. i ; fehiii.ih . . .Ihere, Kiek. xxw. 10, xlvin. 35.

79 As ,1 a/y. .. bound iieixhbourly, I's. cxxii. 3-4 The Heb. verb
rendered "bouiid-neii;hbourly " is ehJAir. Hence Vhnberim.
"ncinhbours,' nu'ntionetl on p. 80, on which see .Schiirer It. 11. S,
32-5; City of the ureal Kint;, Mt. v. 35; //„■ Wisdom of God,
compare I.k. xi. 49 foil, and xiii. 34-5, with .Mt. xxiii. 34-9 ; the city
'.ohieh hath the foundations, Heb. xi. lo.

81 The /7.W mentions of humanity, Kzek. 1. 26, ii. 1 ; ,1 ,^cond
eoineiden,,, Ezek. xliii. 7.

82 The Epistle to the Hebrews, Heb. i. 1 foil., li. 5 16; in Abraham,
_ Cicn. xviii. 18. I),

83 My hatlur and your l-ather, Jn xx. 17; .s,.« ,/ God etc., see
I'art I ch.ipter V.

■ 84 ftuildin,; etc.. (,cn. x.tx. 3, i S. ii. 3;, I's. cxviii. 22 ; for all the
nations, .Mk xi. 17 (|!iotinj,- Is. Ivi. 7 (L\.\ , the parall. Mt. xxi, 13,
Lk. xix. 46 omit "for all the nations"; «,'/ ashamed, Heb. li. 11 ;
honour all men, 1 I'et. ii. 17; s(e„ above, p. xvii.
86 Upon the Hoet, .Mt. lii. 24-5, Lk. vi. 47-8; petros...petra,
Mt. xvi. 13—17; a Je-„.'ish tradition, see Levy iv. 32/*.

' References 10 passages alrca.ly fre<|ucntly given in Tan I will mil invariahly
be repeated in the following pages.

.•
164

?'Ar.K •

87 ' riif A'ml, I Cor. x. 4 inn whirh sit Welstcin), Deut. xx\ii. 4 ;
l<c thou /ii-r/cl, Ccn. xvii. 1 ; ii,„/,im (prifrrable to "mercy") ,.e the
Author's A/ii'lofji,, p|>. 28 31 ; (^rycH,, sec llniii. Jcr. xvi. ), anil
Cels. vi. 77 ; ,1 /iviiii; s/uii. tic, 1 IVt. ii. 2 ;.

88 //iin.y etc., Deut; xjtxii. i.i, I's. jxxxi. it,;' /■////,,, i. jij; Abrah.im,
Jn ml. 50 "Your father Abraham rejoiceil to see my ilay ; and he

, saw it, and- was tjlad" ; «,/,/,•„ He disciples, Mt. v. 48; Jewish

IfiuUlioii, see Midrash and Kashi on I's. Ixxv.' 3.

89 H'orcts 0/ elermil/ije, \n vx. (M.

W r/ie SaMheilrin, Exod K. {on ICxod. xv. 1 j ^ lo buil.l ami l„ filani
Jer. i. it.

92 W /«.T<j /<iM>-/, Kitlus. I. u. •

93 Orif^tn, see Horn. Jir. xiv, 5 ; Jerome, on Jer. i. y 10 ; comp.
Jer. xlv. 17 "Then took I the mp at the l.or.l's hand, and made all
the natmns to drmk, unto whom the Lord had sent me. "

9« ' ToueJied my moullt, Jer. i. 9 ; rtpeiit, Mk ]. 15 ; tiiui;hl -Milt
nulkorily, Mk 1. 22, 27 ; ll,e prime 0/ this world, Jn xii. ji ; fallen
fromfieif.en, Lk. x. 18.

95 Isaiah. ...Miillhnii..., Is. liii. 4, comp. .\lt. viji. 17 ; ahove-menlioncd
"JirsI lesson" sec p. 74. ,

96 //,(/// /,„,/ on him. Is. Ini. 6 ; ,n the Ails oj the Aboslles. Arts m

97 , Entered into Kzehel, Kzek. n. ; ; the lord is there, see pp. 77-8.

98 a;./ to ie ministered unto, see p. 44 foil. ; /.// empty. Ml.' xii. 44,
comp. I.k.'xi. 35; sill no longer, Jn v. 14, the present imperative
implies that the map has been a sinner and is warned not to continue
in sin. *

99 A'ecei7'eye,]n xx. 22; Shakespeare. Much Ado, IV. 1, 220 foil. ;
/« the quotation saerijice, ,ev p. 49 ; delivered up. ..mate inlenessioii,
set I'art I chapter vill, especially pp. 40 41.

100 Killed. . .smitten. ..,,u,if„d. see Part I chapters nil and IX.

101 A little lohile, i omp Jn \vi. 16 ^ ly. '

104 'I." J'/*.in;/,</ K.V. partLMl)/r(„H M,v;;, Lk. XXIV. 51. K.V. text
continues "and was carried up into heaven," but these words are
(R.V. man-t;.; omitted. by "some ancient authorities" and doubly
bracketed by Westcott and Hort ; „ friK'crh, I'rov. xvii. 9 "he that '
harpeih on a matter separateth chief friends. ' 1

105 - Going, or .i^oing home, see Johannine I'oeabulary, 1652— 64 •"
Xiru, hathHhe son of man he.n glorified, Jn xiii. 31, see Johannine .
Grammar, 2446.

106 / have conquered, Jn xvi. 33 ; Luke's description, Lk. xi. 22 ; the
spirits in prison, i- Pet. 111. ig ; my God, Mk xv. 34, Mt. xxvii. 46,
Lk. om., comp. Jn x.x. 17 " my C'od and your God."

*. .65

/

/

/

/

NOTES

I'Ai-.r

107 My Lord itnU my Oori, Jn xx. 2K ; H'ham kinie ivt in htmitn but

Ihte f cnmp. I's. Ixxhi. 35 ; counted il nol a prist, I'hilipp. li. ft.
lOe Anolher self, Jn xiv. ift, see p. 1 10.

109 Sif^iis, see Johiinnine I'ocaiulary, 1686 r; spirit ,\ni\ pinver, Zech.
IV. 6, Kom. i. 4, XV. 1 j, 19, 1 Cor. n. 4, v. 4 etc. ; i;re<iter works, Jn xiv.
ij ; oAi brief pitssiif^e variously reported, Mk xiii. 11, Ml. x. ly— 20,
Lk. xii. 13, cump. I,k. xxi. 14—15.

110 A mouth and irisdom, \\ xxi. 14-15; Another, ]n xiv. 16, see
Joh. l,ram., 2791 6.

111 llrini^inf; deitruition... or purifying. The best illustration of this
twofnUI meaning is in Kxml. iii. 3 3 ; two-ed/ied sword, I's. cxlix. 5 6,
comp. Kev. i. 16, ii. 12, llrb. iv* 12 "The Word of (lod is. sharper
thiin any two-edged sword... and quick to discern the thoughts and
intents of the heart"; in /saiaA, Is. xlix.'j foil., lix. 17—21 ; and with

j fire, Mt. lii. 11, Lk. iii. 16; not. pence, Mt. x. 34, Lk. xii. 49—51,

/ coinp. Lk. »xii. 3ft "buy a sword."

/ • il2 I'hilifs description, i. 565, ii. 247; your members. ..on the cirMj

' Col. lii. 5 quoted by Origen on J«r. xii. 11, where he says " Heboid

the earth (i.e. the earthly element) in thyself"; l.uk^s precept,
Lk. xiv. 26 ; John adds "in this world" Jn xii. 25 ; my peace, Jn xiv. '

2? ; henceforth, inserted by Ml. xxvi. 64, Lk. xxii. 69, omitted by
parall. Mk xiv. 62.

113 Made his footstool, cnmp. I's. ex. 1 quoted by Jesus previously in
Mk xii. jii, Mt. xxii. 44, Lk. XX. 42—3, as referring to the Messiah ;
if liny man shall hear etc., Jn xii. 47—8, "continueth rejecting" is ,
an attempt to express the present participle.

114 With the Spirit of God, Ml. xii. 28, parall. to Lk. xi. 20 "with the
finger of (iod " ; sin tigninsl the Jloly Spirit, Mk iii. 28-9, comp.
.Mt. xii. 31— 2, Lk. xii. 10. [Note also Mk xii. 36 "David said, ..in thA
Holy .Spirit," Mt. xxii. 43 '• in the Spirit," Lk. xxii. 40 " in the book
of I'salms"] ; the public "cry," Jn vii. 37—9 "Jesus stood and triad
saying, ' If any man thirst....' Hut this spake he of the Spirit,.. .for

' the Spirit was not yet [given]." ^

117 .\fan'elling...tn connection with e.xorcism, Mk i. 22 — 3, 27 ; be thou ^.

muzzled', Mk jv. 39 literally translated. R.V. renders it here
" He still" and^n Mk i. 25 (to an unclean spirit) " Hold thy peace."
Il9 foil. On chapter ix, it has not been thought necessary to give tht
references to all the passages quoted from the fourth gospel.

122 Heaven and earth, Mk xiii. 3*1, Mt. xxiv. 35, Lk. jxi. 33 (in the
Discourse on the Last Days); for the fall and rising again, Lk. ii. 34,
comp. Jn vi. 63, 68, xii. 48, xv. 3.

123 Johannine Rrvilalion, Rev. ii. 17, iii. 12, xix. 12.

124 No one knoweth the Father, Mt. xi. 27, Lk. x. 22. ) ^

166

BY THE SAME AUTHOR

PUBI.ISHKI) BY A. AND C. BLACK
SOHO SQUARE, LONDON

SILANUS THE CHRISTIAN

Demy 8fo. cloth. Price < 7-f. jbd. net.

"A book of absorbing interest and deep reli);ious sitjniricance....
A study in spiritual conversion which recalls I'/iihihrisius both in the
chaste beauty of its l^^uage and a restrained dramatic power.. ..The
expression of genuine difficulties <|if{iculties both critical a'ml religioui,
which are presenting themselves again in a very similar form tt^ the
modern mind. It is one of the chief merits of l)r Abbott's able anil
stimulating book that, while it does not ignore these difhculties or treat
them as foolish or unrwd, it exhibits them in their true religious
perspective, as belonging to the fringe rather than (he essential revelation
of the (iospels.'" Manchester Ciuariiittn.

"Interesting on account of the literary skill with which he presents
innumerable points of exposition and ( riiicism, and on account, too,
of the beauty and strength of many of its passages. "—.•/M<'«r^«;«.

"A deeply interesting; theok'gical book in' the forni of a -story....
I)r Abbott contrives, with real dramatic ability, to make it appear
natural that all his characters should be for the time being completely
obsessed*by their subject.... The gist of his teaching. ..is summed up in
the words of Clemens Ml has been said that the religion of the
Christians is a persont-and nothing more. I should prefer to say
the same thing differently. Our religion is a person— and nothing
leu'."— .spectator.

" The book is an able and delightful one. We know nothing so vivid
and so good on Kpictctus....The strength and the weakness of the
character and system of that wonderful teacher are set forth with
unVivalled power and with graphic simplicity. So also is the teaching of
the New Testament in some of its aspects.. ..We appreciate the schofar-
ship, the literary an, the high character, and the reverence of the
book."— //ii'/i/iy/i Free Press. ,

"The form of Action which br Abbott employs undoubtedly adds
a lively force of persuasion and reality to the highlycritical and even
tecTinical arguments with which his study abounds..., Valuable. .;as
a contribution to the criticism of the doctrines and ethics of .Stoic and
Christian. "— fw/Ztftf/t.

.<P

" He docs, in our opinion, present to the reiuleri lie conlemplales
a conception of Christ. ..such as may help many to whom 'miracles' are
a hindrantf iii initiu. Viewed as an easy and interesting introtluclioiD to
the UiKhcr Criticisni of the New Tcstameiit, Siliiniis the ChriUinii
is very welcome." /.//crary World.

JM|^rcliKious lomance that recalls the Philoihrislus and Dmsiimn
of m^arlier days and is q nte worthy to stand alon;;sidc. of them....
Finely conceived and (incly written, and characterised not only by n ■
Ijreat deal of insight into certain aspects of New I'eslamcnt teaching,
but by an instinctive power of realising and reprotlucing the intellectual
and social atmosphere of llie Roman world in the carl> decades of- the
second century. ...No one with any symp.iihy for the subject will read
this book without feeling its charm and appreciating its strong and fresh
presentation not only of the spiritual teaching of Jesus, but of the
doctrine of Kpictelus." , (//<mi,7;«' Herald.

" Readers of P/iiloc/iris/us and Oneiiiiius will know what to exjiect in
Si/anus, alike in its non-niifaculous Chrisiianily, in its keen criticism of
documents, its lofty and unfaltering cthicalism, and iis exquisite charm of
style. The impress of genius is everywhere m.Tmifest....A noble book,
and one which we venture to ihink will afford relief to ihose who are
staggered with the idea of the supern.itural. "—//,!//;>/ 7/««.
■•

"An exceedingly interesting study of psychology illustrating the
history of thought iii Dte time of Jesus.. ..This volume proves that such
rejection [of the miraculous element in Christianity] is compatible with
that high form ijf rexerence for the written word which seeks always to
find the spirit behind the letter, and with the most fervent and loyal
devotion to the person of Christ and His teaching. '-

J!irminf;/iaiii Daily Post.

" One of the most charming Christian romances ever written."—

lixpoulory Timts.

" The pen that long ago wrote PhilochriUiis, that delightful study of
the central figure in the (iospels, has. cjearly not lost its cunning....
In the charm with which Dr Abbott contrives to invest the glucidation of
religious ideas he is certainly unrivalled.. ..It will be apparent what
an opportunity is here for the rare gids of historical learning, insight,
r and characterisation which »r Abbott has at command, and admirably is
it made use of. A lifelike picture is given of the spiritual milieu of the
second century, and of the entry of Christian ideas upon the scene, and
incidentally a great variety of , ritical and^ other questions are descjnted
upon with the .luthor's well-known daring'and ubility."— J>V,i/.(«;,j«.

■•The author of Philockiislus and Tht Kernd ,md Iht Husk ocEupies
a niche by himself in English iheologv, and we shall not be surprised if
this work, written in the ripeness of his powers, proves the most enduring

of his writings.,,. Ihere^re passages of exegesli and spiritual interpreta-
tion in this volume that lake us tOithe very heart of thinRs."—

/Irilish Conf^,)ri,liimali<l.
" Interest of a (listihcli\?e kirtd is always attai hrd to IjflK. A Abbott's
work, his ioKenious industry Iwing one of the outstanding features
. of modern theolouy. lie has an equipment that gives him the right, as
well ab a courage that gives him the power, lo t«ke a linc-of his own ;
and the fruit is seen in a notable series of volumes, as suggestive as they
are unconventional... Iherc are vivid pictures of the personality and
leaching of Kpictetus ; and the mental experiences of Silanus afford an"
, effective medium for the prcsenlaiij)n of l)r Ablidn's views on the New
Testament.. ..Theology inusi always be the gainer from strong work with
an individual stamp; and there lies I)r Abbott's great value lo his
generation." -C'Ar/'j7/,j/i iror/d.

"Ucserves every- student's respect.^The author, with a notably
fine equipment as a crtiic-knowledge, pa||[ence, impartiality, judgment -
has made himself m.aster of ihe leading Viovemenls" m pagan thought
during that unlit period, and in .Silanus he shows us a youth groping his
«ay lo faith in Christ." -AVrt///j/i /{ct'icu.

"The story is both beautiful and possible. ..may be of great value, on
account of the strong sense of spiritual reality which floats serenely over
the troubled waves of petty verbal questionings ;... may be cordially
recommended to any man who would not care to read the ordinary
apologetic Christian books of the day, but who would like to le«rn from
a very competent teacher what are the facts about the earliest Christian
literature, and wherein their persuasive spiritual power still lies."—
■^ Weslmimler GiizelU.

"A fine imaginative study of the conflict of the higher pag: nism
with the growing power of the (iospel. Incidentally the book is full
of subtle and acute exposition of the (iospel narratives, but its central
interest is in the study of a human soul in its inner conflict.. ..No
disagreement with I)r AbJ)iJt in details should l)e allowed to obscure the
literary excellence of h< /ork, or the convincing power with which
he has brought his rcnd^s face to face with the central truth of the
Christian Revelation- 'our religion is a person-and nothing less'."-

Inqitinr.
"One of the most interesting of the books of \<^....Phitoclu-istus
was interesting, so was Onaimus: Silanui Ihe Chrisli.tn is far more so....
It will exactly suit a very large class of the laity of the present day...!
Written in a deeply reverent and earnest spirit.... For every reason,
Silanus Ihe Chrisliiin may be recommended lo ihe clergy.. ..It is a •
noble-minded book : it will enlarge the symp.ithies of every reader ;
if It sometimes surprises and perplexes, it never offends ; and it clearly
and convincingly shews how a Christianity containing little dogma
and ayen less of the mir.aculous element is infinitely superior to the very
highest ethics of philosophy." Qplimisl.

T

" By far the most vivid picture of Epictetus and by far the most
instructive account of the Stoic philosophy that I have seen, are to be
found in Dr Abbott's remarkable story. ..finely conceived and admirably
written. ..of absorbing interest. ..as fascinating as any novel and vastly
more instructive.. ..It not only contains a most instructive and pathetic
story of a soul in search of truth and goodness : it is an invaluable
repertory .of ingenious exposition and interpretation. It simply teems
with materials for the Christian preacher and teacher. It is a treasury of
Biblical leaming.".*(l™a/ Thoughts.

" In its way the work\s one by a master" — Westminster Review.

^ " One of the most charming Christian romances ever written." —

Commonwealth.

"This will be Ur Abbott's n\pst popular book. ..every page is full
of thought and crowded with suggestion. ..alive with human interest....
Not only fascinating in scholarship and style, but a timelyfand valuable
message for an age of doubt." — Primitive .Methodist Leader.

"ManyAvho are convinced that the old teaching is still the soundest
and happiest approach will rejoice that Ur Abbott can lead others by his
own less attractive path to the same high view of the nature and the
claims of the Founder of Christianity....A really impressive book.. ..This
presentation of the paramount interest of the issues of the soul's life and
of the power over the affections and the conscience of the appeal of
Christ." — Saturday Rt.~i'ie'ui.

"The volume js distinguished by the same imaginative power,
freshness of thought, "SnU chastity of style which were the notes of its
predccKsors Philocltrislus and Uiicsimus." —

/ Journal of Theological Studies.

" Instinct with a spirit- from which, we think, virtue will go out toJBHi
of gbod will. .'.'We think that many who dissent fjtom Ur Abbott's views
will receive spiritual stimulus from contact withihe personality which
speaks through the characters of this book, and leel that he has borne
impressive witness to the things which to the^ are supremely real
and precious." — Times. ' , ,

C.\MI:KIIi(;k: IKINTEIi liY JIMIN CI.W, M.,\. AT lilt LNIVERSnV I'RF.SS.